Tools & Delivery

Jammer's Review

Star Trek: Enterprise

"Dear Doctor"

Air date: 1/23/2002
Written by Marie Jacquemetton & Andre Jacquemetton
Directed by James A. Contner

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

"Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive, I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God." — Archer

In brief: By miles the best episode so far. An excellent outing in its quiet, pleasant, and startlingly observant way.

John Billingsley's performance of Dr. Phlox makes for a supporting character of the highest order, and it's only because of trying to stay focused on the main points (or perhaps simply because of an oversight on my part) that I have yet to single him out for praise — or any sort of analysis, for that matter — in my 11 Enterprise reviews preceding this one.

Billingsley's Phlox has been a supporting role that's incredibly pleasant to watch; it's just been hard to mention as much without it coming across as an aside. But in "Dear Doctor" he finally has the spotlight and I can turn my attention in his direction, giving the character and the actor their due.

I think the key word for this episode is "perspective." This is a story that's all about insights gained through perspective. Also through listening, careful observation, patience, conscience, and understanding. This is a remarkably quiet episode in its presentation. It's almost entirely devoid of histrionics and completely lacking in action. The story simply takes us in a direction and follows it through to its destination, while Phlox carefully observes what goes on around him and serves as our running commentary.

The results are extremely effective. The narrative framing device comes in the form of a letter Phlox is composing to his human counterpart in the interspecies exchange program. Phlox, a Denobulan, is the only one of his species serving with a Starfleet crew. His counterpart, Dr. Lucas, is the only human serving among Denobulans. Of course, we never actually meet Dr. Lucas, because he isn't really a person so much as the story's avenue for Phlox's monologue. And in hearing what Phlox has to say we gain a very unique perspective on what's happening on board the Enterprise — ranging from his take on how humans invest an emotional stake in fictional movie characters to the major scientific ethics issue involving the natural evolution of an entire world and whether we should interfere in such matters.

The monologue voice-over approach is not an uncommon device in film, but it has only occasionally been used on Trek to such an extent. Most memorably and recently would be DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight," but TNG followers may recognize elements of "Dear Doctor's" narration device being most similar to "Data's Day" (1991) from TNG's fourth season. In that episode, Data chronicled a day in his life aboard the USS Enterprise, also in the form of a letter to a colleague. And in that story, as in this one, the overall theme was witnessing human behavior from a unique outsider's perspective. Here it's even more effective because through Phlox we see more compelling events — an outsider's view of humanity's early steps into a larger universe, and the responsibilities that come with those steps.

Captain Archer finds himself in a situation where he might be able to help an entire world when representatives from a people called the Valakians ask for help in curing a deadly disease. Treating the disease is beyond their society's medical abilities, so they've turned to off-worlders with better medical technology for help. Unfortunately, it's taken them years just to find anybody, because they don't have warp drive and basically have to wait until other travelers find them. Archer announces his intention to help, and the challenge of curing the disease falls on our good doctor, Phlox.

The alien world medical crisis storyline is hardly new to Trek, but here it serves as the backdrop for (1) a great deal of wonderful observation and insight, and (2) a dilemma that sets a wonderfully appropriate stage for a Prime Directive dilemma, in an era where the Prime Directive does not yet exist.

It starts off routinely enough, as Phlox begins his research by running tests, analyzing DNA, etc. We meet the Valakians and some of their representatives, and we also meet another humanoid species indigenous to their planet, the Menk. It's of a certain peculiar interest that the Valakians and the Menk, two separate and genetically incompatible groups, have both survived as sentient humanoid species. As Phlox points out, in a typical case of the evolutionary process with two distinct species, one group would've likely wiped the other out long ago.

On this planet, both species have evolved alongside each other. The Menk, however, are not as advanced in their intellectual capacities. They are much more primitive, whereas the Valakians have technology and space travel and have made contact with people from other worlds. Phlox believes the cure to the Valakian epidemic may lie in the genetic code of the Menk, who are not suffering from the disease.

Phlox's challenging medical research provides the foreground. In the background are the constantly compelling perspectives as we get a chance to get into Phlox's head and take a look at human behavior, at ourselves, through this perspective. Marie and Andre Jacquemetton deserve high praise for their ability to write a story that manages to truly and insightfully step just a little bit outside and provide a look at human behavior in a way that feels absolutely genuine and unique. All the while it maintains a sort of meta-humanistic attitude; we can relate to Phlox's point of view and understand how we're observed from within it, while at the same time noticing that it's not really all that different. It's just different enough to serve as the story's avenue for examination. Very nice.

Consider this voice-over narration by Phlox: "Despite the Menk's insistence that they're treated well, my human crewmates seem to see things differently. They think the Menk are being exploited by the Valakians, so their first instinct is to rise to their defense despite the fact that the Menk don't appear to need or want a defender." This is great stuff, and so very true. Indeed, the first thought that went through my mind as I watched the Menk (who largely operate as primitive laborers), was that they were capable of something more but that the Valakians were exploiting them and keeping them in their place. I figured this would play into the storyline in some way. But instead, Phlox's narration reveals the human attitude that lurks beneath the situation and exposes an alternate viewpoint — one that says perhaps this is simply their way of coexisting. And indeed, he's more or less right. The Menk are happy and well treated. It's our gut humanistic values that believe they should be independent and capable of achieving more.

The cultural examination is further demonstrated through the very pleasantly depicted subplot of Crewman Cutler's (Kellie Waymire, reprising her role from "Strange New World") developing romantic interest in Phlox. Throughout the episode Cutler gives Phlox signs of interest, which he's not entirely comfortable in deciphering. He recognizes the cultural and behavioral differences. Later, he explains to her how he has three wives (each of which has two other husbands), which is quite normal in Denobulan culture. This provides a nice point showing how not all cultures operate like human culture, which ties back into the observations of the Menk.

I also very much liked the scene between Phlox and Hoshi where they're talking with each other in Denobulan. (At last, a TV episode of Trek that has subtitles, something long avoided, intentionally, I believe.) I appreciate the supporting use of Hoshi, who continues to have an easy friendship with Phlox, and I like her interest in his culture from the viewpoint of a linguist.

We also see Phlox's take on T'Pol (who apparently doesn't like dental work very much). T'Pol warns him about how humans are curious of new things, and that could explain why Cutler is expressing interest in him. I like how this provides us with T'Pol's own perspective, and I like even more how Phlox explains that he is unsettled by T'Pol's pure logic, which seems to be missing something that an emotional catalyst might add.

By the time the story's key issue comes around, the episode has already accomplished more than most. The key issue, however, is perfectly suited to what Enterprise as a series is about — confronting new issues. Phlox discovers a cure, along with the fact that the disease is genetic and not caused by any sort of viral or bacterial infection. In short, the epidemic is a natural genetic process of their evolution as people, and the Valakians are likely to be extinct within two centuries. Furthermore, he has evidence that the Menk, living independently, could realize an evolutionary awakening and eventually dominate the planet.

The question no longer is whether Phlox can cure them (he can), but whether he should, and as a scientist, Phlox realizes that he shouldn't interfere with the natural development of an isolated society. When he explains his reasoning to Archer, there's a new tension where Archer finds that his human belief to help the Valakians must be weighed against the moral questions of interfering in a natural process. Subsequently, Archer uses T'Pol as a sounding board in a way that is quite admirable, and explains to her how for the first time he understands why the Vulcans were so reluctant to let humans venture out without a safety net. Archer gets his own new perspective through these events, and decides, even though it goes against his beliefs as a human, that he can't dictate the natural evolution of another world.

Through a series of considered opinions from different perspectives, everyone learns a little bit of something. Phlox realizes that he might have underestimated his captain — that humans are capable of reacting independent of their feelings and initial instincts.

The episode's closing scene featuring Archer's prophetic statements about the Prime Directive is abundantly clear to the core Trek audience, but by this point the episode has earned every word of Archer's speech. It's earned by putting Phlox and Archer in tough positions with no easy answers and no convenient solutions.

From an execution standpoint, all of this benefits from a careful, consistently even-handed touch by director James A. Contner, who never, ever, pushes for an unnecessary effect and instead maintains the position of staying as invisible as possible. Also helpful is the understated score by David Bell, which provides us with the pleasant emotional cues but without ever coming close to getting in the way. The restraint is admirable and the episode is all the better because of it; I must say that after sitting through scenes of brain-dead action in just about every episode of Andromeda, "Dear Doctor" is evidence that television absolutely does not have to pander to the lowest common denominator or hit us over the head with obvious dialog to get our attention. This episode earns our attention by simply telling a good story.

"Dear Doctor" is, I fear, a rarer treasure than we might at first give it credit for. This episode stops and listens. It hears. It observes. It has a true understanding of human nature. It has perspectives of a kind that I want to see more of. And it believes in an audience that is interested in the true spirit of Star Trek and exploration rather than selling out in the name of being the hip flavor of the week.

This is a real story.

Next week: Return of the Klingons ... and also that decontamination chamber. (Return to reality, I suppose.)

223 comments on this review

I absolutely agree with Jammer on this one! This is Star Trek at its best!

I wonder why the creators, especially of Voyager and Enterprise never
seemed to realize that the best episodes of Star Trek are those that have
an interesting story to tell and not those with the most fighting scenes.
When I think of episodes of that kind, I think about episodes like "The
city on the edge of forever", "The Inner Light", "Darmok", "Tapestry",
"Duet", "The Visitor", "Jetrel", "Tuvix". Granted, some battle scenes were
real eye-candy, but episodes like those mentioned above are the reason I
watch Star Trek.
Dear Doctor is so far the first outing of Enterprise really competing for a
place on this list!

Seriously? You're giving this episode four stars? An episode where they let
an entire race die off for absolutely no reason?

Even if we accept Phlox's ridiculous interpretation of Evolution, which is
really hard to do, it's still bullshit. The Menk clearly rely on the
Valakians for food and shelter. If their protectors die, most of the
Menk-if not all-are going to die to.

This is Trek at its worse, touting noninterference as an excuse to allow
atrocities.

This episode isn't bad. It isn't horrible, or bullshit, or ignorant, or
misguided. No, none of these adjectives go far enough to describe Dear
Doctor. In fact, I can only think of one that fits.

This episode is evil.

There is no question about this: Captain Jonathan Archer and Doctor Phlox,
by their inaction, are complicit in the genocide of an entire species. This
is not a statement of opinion, this is a fact.

Not only that, but their justification for murdering the Valakians is not a
single iota different from ANY philosophy that has been used to justify the
termination of a large group of people in history. We're talking about
killing millions of people solely because it will benefit a different group
of people. This is unequivocally evil.

Phlox: I'm saying we let nature decide.

This is supposed to be the voice of scientific reason? Nature is not an
entity capable of making choices. For that matter, evolution is not a
higher power that has a plan for all creatures. It is not Allah, Jehovah,
Zeus, or the one true Cylon God. Nature simply is. It is simply a process,
and to elevate that process into almost a divine plan that must not be
interfered with is to descend wholly into insanity.

There have been plenty of Trek episodes that have left me annoyed at their
bad plots, ludicrous technobabble, or lack of anything really happening,
but this episode is the only one that has ever made me angry. I cannot
believe it's been given a positive review, with its "It's wrong to throw a
float to a drowning man" message.

Look back to the days when it was fine for TV to be racist or sexist. "Dear
Doctor" stands out for sheer offensiveness even amongst that lot.

I agree with Jammer, this is Star Trek at its best, and perfectly written
for Enterprise's exploration of humanaty's first steps grappling with these
kinds of issues.

Don't want to start an argument here, but I'm not sure why some of the
earlier comments equate holding back alien technology from a society that
would have massive implications, some good some bad, for both these
species, with the worst moments of our own history. I feel Archer and Phlox
faced an honest moral dilemma here.

Btw, I see on the interweb that the actress who played Crewman Cutler died
a few years ago. What a cutie she was. Sorry to hear the news.

This is it. Not TOS: "Spock's Brain", not VOY: "Threshold", but ENT: "Dear
Doctor" — the single worst episode in all of Trek.

Because it's immoral.

Of all the systems of ethics ever devised, religion and secular, the only
one that I can think of that would justify the crew's actions here is
Social Darwinism in its most crude, perverted form. The strong survive,
the weak perish.

Come to think of it, that puts Starfleet at about the same level of Species
8472.

How interesting that, 7 years after this episode first aired, its ethical
stance is still being vigorously debated. If nothing else, that's a sign
that the cast and writers did their job.
Though I believe that Jammer is far too harsh on Trek in all of his reviews
(not every episode has to break new ground for me - it just has to tell a
good story and tell it well). I'm glad there's still a forum for discussing
all the incarnations of one of television's finest achievements. Thanks,
Jammer!

The problem is not the quality of the script or the acting. The problem is
that a misinterpretation (I choose to believe that it was done in
ignorance) of scientific and ethical concepts has twisted a moral story
into an immoral one.
As David Key said, it seems that the writers have attributed divine
properties to the process of evolution. Evolution does not strive towards a
specific goal. Natural selection simply means that individual organisms who
succeed are more likely to pass their traits to the next generation.
Phlox says the disease is genetic, implying that evolution has marked the
Valakians for extinction, providing more moral justification for his
actions. But again, this is not how evolution works. There's no reason that
a genetic condition which kills the organism will allow him to survive
better then it's counter parts who lack it, making it so common the whole
race carries it. We might assume that perhaps this suicidal trait has piggy
backed on a successful trait. An organism might carry a trait that
facilitate a better survival rate while at the same time carrying a "bad"
trait that is transmitted along with the "good" one. But it's hard to
imagine how such a trait survived if it kills the carrier. The chances that
a non-carrier will survive are always greater.
But even if the race is doomed to extinction, why not help them? There's a
second reason of course, the Menk. Should the Valakians die, the Menk might
evolve to take their place as a sentient civilization. It's almost comical
how the logical progression of events is depicted as a preordained destiny.
When a meteor facilitate the extinction of dinosaurs other organisms
quickly evolved and filled the niches left. There's nothing magical about
it, its just how things work. If you fill a tub with water and then remove
a volume of it out in a bucket, water quickly rush to fill the hole. You
wont say that the rushing water were 'meant' to fill that hole, it's just
how liquid behaves.
So the Valakians are not meant to die, the Menk are not meant to survive.
What other reasons are there? Cultural contamination is moot since the
Valakians had contact with two warp civilization prior to the enterprise.
Giving them a technology is moot because what is given to them is a cure,
not the technology to synthesize it.
The only valid reason is a religious one. And make no mistake, this is a
religious decision. Archer doesn't want to play God. he doesn't want to
interfere in god's plan. They refuse to save countless lives because god
might have meant them to die. But this argument is ultimately just as
flawed as the others. Lets assume the religious stance for a moment:
There's a divine will that has the power to orchestrate any and all events
in the universe. We can infare his will from the state of the world around
us. He obviously wanted the Valakians to die, why else would they have this
genetic flaw. If he wanted them to survive, he might have orchestrated
events that would cure them. Like bringing a well meaning race with a
advanced enough technology to cure them into the vicinity...
But even this is a stretch. We are supposed to believe that both Archer and
Phlox are secular and educated moral people who are faced with a difficult
moral decision. No doubt that was the script's intention. But through
ignorance, misunderstanding scientific principles and a certain blindness
to the moral reprecussions this story raised - an episode was created which
supported an immoral decision through inconsequential arguments.

Zero stars from me, too.
Oren Ashkenazi, David Key, SimonC, Bertie and Hecktar have already brought
up many of the points I was about to make.

You'd hope that Science Fiction writers have at least a basic grip of the
natural sciences, but Star Trek writers seem to lack even that. We the
audience accept the basic premise of faster than light travel and
transporter technology as part of the background setting. No problem with
that. But Star Trek writers seem to have a special problem grasping even
the fundamentals of genetics and the Theory of evolution through genetic
variation and natural selection (for thr sake of brevity, I won't get into
the topics of epigenetics, proteomics and lateral gene-transfer here). Over
the years Trek writers have produced a number of groanworthy "fun with DNA"
episodes that had more in common with creationism than sound science. But
this episode takes the cake.

David wrote:
"If nothing else, that's a sign that the cast and writers did their job."

No, if the writers had "done their job", these points of discussion
would've been brought up by the characters within the episode! Instead,
Archer and Phlox are in total agreement. Worse, why are Cpt. Archer and
general physician Phlox the ones to make a decision on which hinges the
survival of a whole sentient species? Why not call a number of Earth and
Vulcan geneticists for help?

It's another false ethical dilemma, dreamt up for the sake of cheap drama.

Worse, Phlox starts from a number of wonky premises. First of all, he
simply proclaims that two sentient species cannot coexist on the same
planet, or as Jammer put it: "in a typical case of the evolutionary process
with two distinct species, one group would've likely wiped the other out
long ago". What?? The writers have obviously never heard about
co-evolution.

After observing a handful of Menk individuums working in a Valakian
household for a few minutes, Phlox comes to the questionable conclusion
that the Menk as a species are getting smarter. (Raising the question of
how Dear Doctor Phlox measures "intelligence".)

He then proclaims that for some unexplained reason he's 100% certain that
Mother Nature is just waiting to make the Menk a fully intelligent species,
but the Valakians are in the way of the Menk "realizing their full
potential". Again, this is nonsense. (Please note that the writers never
try to claim that the Valakians enslaved the Menk.)

We're supposed to feel warm charitable feelings towards the poor
semi-intelligent Menk. But the Menk will not die out if the Valakians
survive, not will the existance of the Valakians stop the Menk for getting
more intelligent... because it hasn't done so up to now!

Furthermore, none of the characters in the episode ever voices the
hypothesis that maybe the reason why some Menk are getting smarter (if
indeed they do) is because co-evolution and interaction with the more
intelligent Valakians is accelerating the development of their brains. On a
genetic level, maybe the Valakians select those Menk as household pets that
already show a high degree of intelligence, and these Menk become
sought-after partners among the other Menk, plus a Menk child born in a
Valakian household will have a greater chance not to die in infancy from
some disease or malnutrician than those born "in the wild".

More importantly, brains are not static but highly adaptive. Menk living
and working in a Valakian household come in contact with completely
different stimuli than Menk living among their own. They hear the Valakian
language, and have to learn to understand what the Valakians want of them,
and in turn learn to make themselves understood. They are trained to work
with technology. Adaptive pressure influences brain development. On the
other hand, a brain that is not subjected to stimuli becomes retarded, as
has been demonstrated both on animals and human case studies.

Furthermore, modern medicine is a product of intelligence. Denying te
Valakians medical help is like denying surgery to someone with a burst
appendix by claiming that his appendicitis proves that he is "genetically
inferior" and should die already.

[Correction: That sentence should have read: "...nor will the continued
existence of the Valakians stop the Menk from getting more intelligent..."
I thought I had caught all the typos, but obviously I didn't.]

If the script writers really wanted an episode that explored the need for
developing the Prime Directive, they could easily have taken the premise
(two sentient species sharing the same planet and civilisation, the
technologically dominant species is threatened with extinction by a
disease) and twisted it in a variety of more interesting ways:

1) Give the quasi-religious conviction voiced by Phlox and Archer to the
Valakians. They are faced with extinction and most of them believe this is
their Destiny or the will of their God(s) and that their souls will be
reborn in the "primitive but strong" Menk species. A minority of "heretics"
disagrees and sends pleas for help into Space in the hopes of attracting an
advances alien race.

Phlox comes up with a cure, and Archer has to decide if he wants to
intervene, if he has the moral authority to intervene, or even the
diplomatic ability to convince these people.

2) The Menk and Valakians are equally intelligent, but for some reason the
Menk are still stuck in a bronze age or stone age society... either because
the Valakians didn't want to intervene in their social development, or
because the Valakians have only recently discovered the region of a
far-away continent where the Menk live, or because the Menk tribal elders
shun all technology as foreign and fear the danger of assimilation. Contact
with the Valakians on the other hand has brought advantages to a few less
xenophobic Menk tribes, such as trade, medicine, artificial wells, better
nutrition and the idea of peaceful coexistence. But the more xenophobic of
the Menk see the Valakian's disease as a divine sign that the Valakians are
supposed by divine providence to die out and the Menk are supposed to
inherit all their nifty techno toys.

First of all, this episode is really well done in its quite and insightful
way. If only more ENT episodes were done in that fashion...

I do not agree with some of the comments here. This episode is certainly
not "evil". Archer and Phloxs decision is understandable. They simply can't
bear the weight of determining the fate of millions of people.

Archer is right. He is not there to interfere. It's not his place to jugde
on who lives and who dies.

"Archer is right. He is not there to interfere. It's not his place to jugde
on who lives and who dies."

Sorry, Jack, but that is nonsense. It's a cowardly excuse. By refusing to
help despite being ASKED for help, Archer and Phlox have already made a
judgement on who will die. They could have easily refered the decision to
their higher-ups or to the Vulcan Science Council, but they didn't. They
had a cure, but they decided to hold it back for reasons that are wholly
religious and based on ridiculous bogus biology. Legally, that is failure
to render assistance, despite there being no risk to themselves!

If you are asked for help by a diabetic woman who desperately needs a shot
of insulin, and you have insulin but refuse to give it to her because you
think God decided for her to die, or that her underage child is more worthy
and would upon her death inherit all her money, and she subsequently dies
as a result of your decision, I'm pretty sure that would be considered
manslaughter or even murder. And causing a whole race and civilisation to
die is genocide.

The Prime Directive, which didn't even exist at this point in time yet,
only states that Star Fleet is not supposed to interfere in non-warp
cultures which, and this is important, are not aware of the existence of
other space-faring cultures Out There. This especially refers to things
like intra-cultural wars, that is wars the race is waging among themselves
between different nations for example, or to things like natural
catastrophes.

Once a race is aware that there are "aliens" out there who can help them,
however, Star Fleet is allowed to swoop in and save them with their
advanced technology, because it is assumed that cultural contact has
already been made.

Archer and Phlox were not asked to interfere in a territorial or cultural
dispute or war between the Valakians and the Menk. Phlox was asked to give
medical assistance and refused for reasons that do not hold up either
scientifically nor ethically, and Archer went along with it.

Archer could have told others about the disease and extinction the
Valakians face. As far as I remember, he didn't. Some hero.

--[Addendum]--
After I hit Send on my above comment I realized I had allowed the
Archer-apologizers to frame the discussion in a way that narrows it down to
a single topic: interference vs non-interference.

Now, while the script writers do their best to pretend that this episode is
about the origin of the Prime Directive, it really isn't.

The whole idea of the Prime Directive is about not interfering in the
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT of a LESS technologically advanced species. But as
Hecktar stated above: "Cultural contamination is moot since the Valakians
had contact with two warp civilization prior to the enterprise."

What Archer and Phlox refused to "interfere" with here is their idea of the
BIOLOGICAL "destiny" of the Valakians.

Furthermore, if Archer and Phlox were so determined to *not* interfere with
alien cultures, they should have said "Sorry, won't." and warped-speeded
away right after their contact with the Valakian representatives asking for
their help. But they didn't.

Instead, Archer and Phlox initially promised the Valakians to try and help
them. They went down to the planet. They interacted with the natives. Phlox
started medical testing. He started working on a cure.

The whole bogus ethical dilemma started only when
1) Phlox announced that the disease is a species-wide genetical plot
device.
2) Phlox encounters the Menk (or rather, a few individuums) and immediately
makes three dubious claims:
a) That two sentient species cannot peacefully coexist on the same planet
without the more technologically advanced wiping out the other one (despite
the fact this hasn't obviously happened there), and
b) That the Menk *as a species* are getting more intelligent (compared to
what?) because some trained individuums can function on the level of
parrots.
c) That the Valakians are meant to die out so that the Menk can fulfill
their preordained destiny.

At which point Archer and Phlox declare the Valakians obsolete and
interfere on the side of the Menk.

When the episode was over, I remember viciously hoping the reason we had
never seen Denobulans in Kirk's time was that the whole species had died
out from incest and arrogance.

"The question no longer is whether Phlox can cure them (he can), but
whether he should, and as a scientist, Phlox realizes that he shouldn't
interfere with the natural development of an isolated society. When he
explains his reasoning to Archer, there's a new tension where Archer finds
that his human belief to help the Valakians must be weighed against the
moral questions of interfering in a natural process...

"This episode stops and listens. It hears. It observes. It has a true
understanding of human nature. It has perspectives of a kind that I want to
see more of. And it believes in an audience that is interested in the true
spirit of Star Trek and exploration rather than selling out in the name of
being the hip flavor of the week."

I have but just one question to contribute to this debate: What would
Archer do were the situations REVERSED? i.e. Humankind has contracted a
deadly disease, asked for help from an outside source, and was subsequently
turned down for the same reasons? Does anyone honestly believe that
Starfleet would permit such a thing because it's "the natural order of
things"? Hell, they were willing to trick the Romulans into war,
assassinate a chancellor to protect their fleets, and abet in the genocide
of the Founders.

(To those last two posts there will be people who would undoubtedly claim
that the Federation wasn't truly aware of any of it happening, but once
they found out there as hell wasn't any consequences. They refused to give
the cure to the Founders and Worf got off scot-free; not even a reprimand
on his record like when he killed Duras. Why? Because they conveniently
"needed" the Klingons to help defend themselves. How very interesting...)

NOW I know how they came up with the Prime Directive: Archer and Phlox's
genocide covered up by "the moral high road". Thank God they fine-tuned it
over the centuries. The Valakians were PEOPLE: They were allowing men,
women, even CHILDREN to die as a race. Innocent beings who had done them no
harm and were only guilty of conscripting a "genetic disease," whatever the
hell THAT is. I'm more than convinced that the main reason Archer came to
this ambiguous decision is in part because he wanted the Menk to be free.
But Kirk himself said it: "Freedom isn't a gift, it has to be earned."

It's like this: If you saw someone holding a gun to somebody in a back
alley and you had a gun to shoot THEM (unlikely, but just hear me out)
would you in all good faith (if you were moral like Archer and Phlox claim
to be?) not shoot that individual to save the other? Even if you just
limited yourself to wounding and not killing? Chrstina highlighted a lot of
points I think are pertinent but alas, some will like this, some will hate
it. Different views, different opinions.....

Whenever we analyze tv shows or movies under the criteria of their morality
we should always consider the message that an episode sends. And therefore
that is really what's truly the most important thing. If a crewman wears
the wrong insignia or we are left with another deus ex machina technobabble
solution, then these things are just minor mistakes compared to the essence
of an episode.

So let's view the message given to us by this episode. Essentially this
isn't an episode about cultural non interference or giving weapons to some
primitive society. It is about giving humanitarian aid to a people who are
dying out. Now let's forget the prime directive(which doesn't really excist
at this point anyway), let's forget about Phlox-s strange ethical code for
just a second. Let's see how this would reflect a decision in the real
world.

According this principle we shouldn't give any humanitarian aid to Africa
because that would be intervention. So basically we'll let people die of
diseases because well their civilization is inferior to ours. By all right
they should be fine by themselves and if they're not then it's just
evolution running its natural path. Furthermore if let's say in Palestine
the Israelites would have a disease which only affected them and the
palestinians would be free of it because of some genetic anomaly then we
shouldn't give medicine to anybody because well we should just let them die
out.

Let's take it even further, the prime directive meant that the federation
could not attempt to free Bajor from the cardassian occupation because well
their borders were drawn in that way

In the real world - In WWII it would've been "highly immoral" to liberate
countries from the nazi regime because well the nazis said their border now
runs from here. Basically nazi occupied Europe would've been an internal
matter.

Also a derivative of this philosophy would be that the nazis would have had
the right to murder millions and declare themselves superior because well
they survived and they had guns and they conquered so essentially they
would gain the evolutionary right to exist.

Now I truly hope that virtually all star trek fans have problems with such
decisions and frame of "morality". Episodes such as "Dear Doctor" and
"Homeward" were both written after Gene Roddenberrys death. I do believe
that his prime directive was never intended to be something as despicable
and vile as the writers have described it to be.

This episode disgusted me completely. The worst thing was that both Archer
and Phlox ended in complete agreement of their actions - therefore there
was only one conclusion to the viewer this was the absolutely right thing
to do and it should be done again at all times. This is the essence of this
episode and therefore it can only be concluded that morally speaking it has
about as much value as a Hitler's speech

quote : ../When the episode was over, I remember viciously hoping the
reason we had never seen Denobulans in Kirk's time was that the whole
species had died out from incest and arrogance./...

Actually I believe something of the sort happened:

In the early 23rd century a huge asteroid was detected heading towards the
denobulan homeworld. Originally the federation planned to just tow it
outout of the way, but then it was discovered that a rather peculiar type
of fungi lived on the asteroid. While the denobulans would perish in the
fiery cataclysm this fungi would probably thrive in the post apocalyptic
denobulan homeworld. Also in 2.5 billion years the fungi could evolve into
a sentient being. Therefore the federation just sat there and watched how
the asteroid impacted the planet. Ofcourse that was not the end since there
were a couple of hundred survivors hiding in bunkers sending out constant
distress calls to the federation. Ofcourse the federation let EVOLUTION run
its course in accordance with the prime directive and therefore slowly and
painfully the denobulans succumbed to the incest and poisonous atmosphere.
(The fungus actually evolved into a warrior race of lizardmen 2.5 billion
years later therefore giving perfect justification for the obliteration of
20 billion denobulans.)

Not sure how religion entered this topic, but to address a specific point:
"I have but just one question to contribute to this debate: What would
Archer do were the situations REVERSED? i.e. Humankind has contracted a
deadly disease, asked for help from an outside source, and was subsequently
turned down for the same reasons?"

Ironically, it WAS reversed in "Observer Effect". Even worse, the Organians
actually had some justification for wanting to not intefere, and Archer had
no problem begging THEM to help, and accusing THEM of lacking compassion,
and that was after just TWO deaths.

Ugh. I really wish, at least once, Star Trek could have gotten evolution
right. This episode is the worst offender - even worse than "Threshold" -
because where "Threshold" is silly nonsense, "Dear, Doctor" is vile
nonsense. This isn't just a low point for Star Trek, it's probably a low
point for all of televised drama. I just can't see any other series using
bad science to justify genocide and the fans not, en masse, crying foul.
It's an embarrassment.

Apparently it needs to be shouted from the rooftops: Evolution is NOT
predestined! It's just what replicating molecules tend do over long periods
of time. Genes don't think - they don't decide on some course and then move
in that direction. The idea that a species could be "on the verge of an
evolutionary breakthrough" is nonsense.

I agree that this was an abhorrent, vile piece of misinformed garbage that
should be killed with fire. I've often been disgusted with some of Trek's
usage of the Prime Directive, but this was by far the most offensive
morality play I've ever seen. A lot of good points have already been made
(especially about The Observer Effect) so I'll just say that the Prime
Directive (which basically sets limits on the 'self' and 'other' thus
determining who is deserving of moral consideration) was supposedly meant
to prevent Starfleet from damaging other cultures that "weren't ready" (ie.
too primitive in comparison to the almighty Starfleet) for "interference"
(eg. humanitarian aid) which could have unintended and unpredictable
consequences. In this mind-blowing episode, the Prime Directive is ratched
up another notch to simply "let them eat cake."

This episode obviously generated a lot of controversy, which still rumbles
on eight years later!

I think Archer and Phlox were wrong, but I still think it was a great
episode. I also think Sisko sometimes did the wrong thing in DS9, as did
Bartlet in the West Wing, but that didn't make me like and admire these
series any the less.

So I'm willing to be more generous to the writers than most of the
commenters here. Don't forget there was no prime directive at this time.
Maybe the framers of the prime directive reviewed Archer and Phlox's
actions in this episode and found them as wrong as the majority of us have.
So they drafted the prime directive in such a way that it allowed
assistance to be given to cultures who were in this position. Who knows,
maybe they went back to the Valakians and gave them the cure at the same
time.

Before I begin commenting on the moral issues at stake, I want to say this
is the first Enterprise episode that actually and truly *engaged* me.
Whether we agree with Archer & Phlox's final decision, it can safely be
stated that this is by far the most *relevant* episode up-to-date, not only
because it tackles a concept very dear to the Star Trek franchise (the
famous/infamous Prime Directive), but because the topic covered resonates
of moral & philosophical implications so far above anything the show
has thrown at us so far, I can't think of any episode having even come
CLOSE to this level.

I have to admit that immediately after viewing, I felt for the first time I
had seen something interesting on Star Trek Enterprise and and was
satisfied with the experience. Better yet, despite I recognized Archer's
final decision was questionable, it rang somewhat "right" for me. After
all, I saw it no different (or at least, very similar) to the would-be
Prime Directive adopted by StarFleet years later in the Trek chronology.

After reading some of the comments above (and the episode review on
sfdebris.com), I was forced to re-evaluate.

Let me first say that the question of moral validity of the Prime Directive
isn't an easy one. More often than not the Directive is presented to us
through a "Nation 1 vs. Nation 2" war-conflict on a foreign planet. The
question then becomes "what right does humanity (or at large, the United
Federation of Planets) have to interfere and aid one nation over the other,
particularly by giving them advanced technology that would turn the tide of
war?". Non-action in this case can justifiably be the logical, easy choice,
at any rate far easier than the situation presented to us in this
Enterprise episode. "Dear Doctor" is a perfect example of just how
controversial the Prime Directive can be.

I feel sufficient evidence has been presented before me to argue the case
one way or the other (particularly the *against* side). So I will state my
opinion briefly: the minute Archer & Phlox had a cure in their
possession, it was a moral OBLIGATION for them to provide help to the
Valakians. Not only because they had requested it, but because as a doctor
Phlox was required by the Hippocratic Oath to do so. I will also add that
after making contact with a technologically-inferior species, it seems to
me the humans (i.e. StarFleet) from that point on, had the *responsibility*
to be involved in their progress. Similarly I suppose, the way the Vulcans
had stayed on Earth to monitor (many characters in this series would say
"spy") the progress of humanity. But I digress.

All in all, I can see what the writers were trying to do here. In many
ways, the attempt can be lauded: this episode was designed to explore the
future-Prime Directive on one end, but also to parallel the degree of
involvement between Humans-Valakians to that of Vulcans-Humans back on
Earth. The regret, is that the way it was carried out was less than
graceful. Previous Trek shows have dealt with Prime Directive issues far
more successfully, at the very least keeping the moral ambiguity high
enough to prevent viewer outrage reaching the levels of *this* episode. A
commendable venture, but an awkward result in retrospect.

[Addendum]
To Archer & Phlox's (and by extension, the writers') defense, I will
add two key factors some readers might be forgetting.
1) The choice to withold the cure from the Valakians isn't an *immediate*
act of genocide. Dr. Phlox said it would take the mutation / disease 200
years to wipe out the species.
2) Archer & Phlox are hoping that during this time, the Valakians will
find a cure to the disease on their own.

In this light comparing Phlox to Hitler, as some readers suggested, is a
bit exaggerated. Not throwing someone a life preserver (in the hope they
will reach shore on their own) and actively pushing them off the boat with
cement shoes, well that's not exactly the same thing.

It'd have perhaps been better (certainly I think, generated less
controversy), if Archer had left a probe or some kind of monitoring device
on the planet, with the intent to come back and help the Valakians in the
future should they still not have reached a cure when close to extinction.
But I guess that would not have fit the philosophy Archer & Phlox had
chosen to adopt for this episode, as flawed as it might be.

Just the fact that so many people have commented on the episode gives it
its 4-star rating in my opinion. I thought Archer's "Prime Directive"
speech was a bit too prophetic, but otherwise a very thought-provoking
episode. I'm not sure I agree with Archer's choice here, but I am 100%
pro-Prime Directive in its 24th century incarnation. Just look at how much
damage U.S. intervention in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan has caused in the name
of "creating democracies". I say pull out, let the countries evolve at
their own rhythm. People (and societies) need to make their own mistakes,
learn their own lessons, in order to improve themselves. Yes, in the short
term perhaps more people will suffer, but in the long term it will be more
than worth it. Same thing with pre-warp civilizations.

One story I wish Enterprise had done was one where they DO interfere. They
go to a pre-warp planet and introduce themselves and offer to share all
their technology. And then you could see all the horrible consequences
these actions would have on the planet... which years later would incite
the Federation to adopt the Prime Directive. That story arc would have been
far more original than another "aliens want to destroy Earth" scenario.

Those examples you cited Nic are a bit more complex. Personal interest from
the US government was also involved. Which is why it's easier to point the
finger and say "mind your own business".

In this episode, Archer & Phlox have no personal gain at stake: they
act out of principle. The fact that this very principle is flawed is what
makes this episode so controversial.

An another note, I have now almost finished viewing season 1. The positive
side one can take from "Dear Doctor" is that it is by far, the most
thought-provoking of the season, which has otherwise been very mediocre.
I'd even be willing to bet, alas, the rest of the series will be more of
the same.

But the theme misrepresents 'evolution' and its moral implications.
Evolution describes how changes take place over time. It is not a thing to
be 'helped' or 'let alone.' It contains no moral guidance for us. It is
merely a decscription.

Letting the people die of a disease is as much an interference in fate as
helping them live. The doctor and Archer misunderstand the nature of fate.
They were already involved. They had a cure. The prime directive does not
allow humans to behave cruelly.

Besides, Archer seems to have little problem 'interfering' with cultures in
other episodes. Every planetary visit, every contact with a ship, every
subspace transmission inadvertently picked up - it's all interference to
some degree.

It's not even an issue with room for opinion. Humans are moral creatures.
Our morality, whatever that is, guides our behavior. Either it is right to
help people or it is right to let them die. One or the other. Hiding behind
a 'prime directive' doesn't avoid the choice. it just clouds your mind.

Besides, if the Prime Directive were so prime it wouldn't even allow for
space exploration at all. In fact, it would demand that we blow up Earth
for fear that some distant world world look at us through a telescope and
have their culture affected.

Were it real, this is the kind of thing that would come to haunt the doctor
and Archer later in life.

This episode is not 'contraversial.' It is offensive. This issue is not
debatable. There are not two sides. You either understand it or need to see
it.

You are human. Yes, you can go through life thinking all morality is
relative, but since it isn't you will never act that way. You will just be
unware of your motives. And corrupted over and over again, like Archer was
here.

In a way, this episode is "Tuvix" writ large, with a bit of "Children Of
Time" thrown in.

In all three cases I highly agree with the actions that the episodes
ultimately took, even though those outcomes were in some ways opposite.
Bringing back Tuvok and Neelix was a restoration to the natural state...and
both were entitled to that restoration. So too was the Valakian
"extinction". I'm curious...all the people calling Phlox's act evil - would
he still be evil if he had been unable to create a "cure"? Just because you
can do a thing does not mean that you should do a thing.

All of the foam-mouthed, fist-pumping college students who've commented
here have missed entirely the reason this episode was given four stars: it
has provoked them to the point where they feel emotional about it. They
talk about it, post about it, and debate it.

About the "people are commenting on this episode, so it must be good"
argument - some of the very worst ST episodes reviewed on this site are
also heavily commented (as are some of the best). So no, the number of
comments is no indication on the quality of the episode. People just like
to complain about things.

And speaking of complaining, this episode killed all interest I had in this
show. Others before me have already given reasons for this - the idiotic
misinterpretation of the theory of evolution and the morally appalling
decision based on it.
Phlonx just KNOWS that the Menks are evolving to replace the Valakian
civilisation. The Valakians are simply in the way of this grand natural
plan (that Phlonx just made up) and should just stop resisting and die. So
our "heroes" are withholding the cure that would save millions for the sake
of the possibility that another civilisation might replace them after they
are all dead. WTF?!
When I was watching this nightmare I kept hoping that T'Pol or maybe
somebody else with a shred of intelligence in their brains would put a stop
to this insanity by delivering a verbal (and maybe physical as well)
smack-down on the "dear doctor" for his ignorance and the captain for even
considering his opinion and not firing him on the spot. No such luck.

@Paul Smith
Ah, the good old ad hominem. That will show everyone just how wrong their
arguments are.

People saying this episode is "evil" or "immoral" are being utterly
ridiculous!

How is "not curing a disease" of a pre-warp civilisation any more immoral
than any other example of Prime Directive non-interference that has been
portrayed over the course of all the other series?

Surely, according to the Prime Directive, Archer shouldn't have been
agreeing to help with this disease at all in the first place - but only did
in this case because there is no prime directive yet, and the humans are
still so all-fired annoyed at the Vulcans for holding US back "for no good
reason" for the last 90 years.

Archer goes into this with a "no WAY we're going to behave like those
stuffy Vulcans" attitude. He ends it with an appreciation of why some of
those rules exist, even if it is difficult to understand the reasons for
them.

I think Archer made the right decision here, too - and don't start telling
ME that's because *I* don't understand how evolution works either.

The problem is Phlox's "philosophical and scientific assessment of the
situation" is pure nonsense. And the morally appalling decision to let
Valakians die is then based solely on this nonsense (note that Phlox and
Archer don't have any problem with helping Valakians before meeting the
Menk).

How does Phlox know that Menk are ever going to evolve to replace the
Valakians? What, did he see it in his crystal ball? Because theory of
evolution sure as hell doesn't say that. For all he knows, Menk are also
going to die out when Valakians are no longer around - certainly many of
them will once there is nobody to take care of them. But Phlonx just
handwaves it all as inevitable and is so sure he is fine with letting
Valakians die. Christina's analogy with a diabetic is right on the money
here - this is genocide. For the sake of an imagined future civilisation
that exists only in his head he is letting millions of very real people die
now. And this guy is supposed to be a doctor?!

This was completely the wrong way to introduce the Prime Directive concept.
It was always going to happen with a prequel, but it had no thought put
into what it was doing (kind of like Voyager).

I've never liked this aspect of the PD in the first place (ISTR the "this
culture is dying but we should let them" has been done in at least TNG) but
it was always just a stated fact that we were to accept, that at one stage
in the past they learned A Great Lesson that scarred Starfleet for
centuries to come and made sure they never want to interfere with the
evolution of pre-warp cultures for as long as they remember whatever
incident it was.

We were never shown this incident, but I always just kind of accepted that
"Something Happened" and that the PD "Exists For A Reason."

So that's what I would've expected from Enterprise: show us exactly this
incident. Show us WHY Starfleet decided that "interfering" in this way is
an Extremely Bad Thing. Archer's initial response was spot-on, but for no
apparent reason he does a 180 and agrees with this supposed scientific
morality. If helping out a dying species will cause the universe to end,
conjure up a plausible reason for it and show us - that way at least it
becomes a genuine understandable tragedy of "we'd love to save these people
but the universe will implode so we have to let them die".

Instead we just get Archer accepting what Phlox and T'Pol say and believing
them unquestioningly. ("We're not out here to play God" he says to justify
it to himself. Eh? Playing God would be creating, altering and destroying
life via means other than reproduction like they do willy nilly in the 24th
century with sentient holograms - saving lives isn't Playing God). I guess
this shows a glimmer of maturity in his relationship with those with more
experience than him (at last) but one of them needs to explain to him (and
therefore the audience) why their equivalent of the PD came to be.
Otherwise why should he just accept it?

It's a poorly executed attempt at trying to show us a pre-PD dilemma
without explaining why such a callous directive came to be and doesn't do
the Trek philosophy any favours at all. Instead of answering the question,
it just makes the Prime Directive (at least this aspect of it; I understand
the non-interference in conflict or culture) look even more pointless and
callous than it did before!

(That said, I don't see it as "murder" or "genocide". They're not killing
these people, they're just not saving them - it's still wrong, but it's
different.)

The people who seem to be arguing for the technological fix over the
natural flow here (presumably they are the same people that would argue for
Tuvix's continued artificial existence over the natural lives of Tuvok and
Neelix)...I wonder...if an alien race were at Earth approximately 65
million years ago, either as a race indigenous to that era, or having time
travelled there deliberately, and prevented the impact, would that have
also been moral? I suspect I'll hear the "dinosaurs weren't saentient"
argument, but even if we knew that for certain (we don't), is that
relevent? They would have eventually become so, and the aliens were
permitting it to happen...a change in the natural flow. Even here it was
200 years away.

Trek is more comfortable with slapping weird foreheads on non-human
characters than in actually exploring non-human mindsets. When it does the
latter, it often pulls back and “sides with the humans” by episode’s
end – or, even worse, spends most of its time contemplating similarities
between the two, always with humanity as the baseline for comparisons. Even
the Klingons, who acquire a genuine culture on TNG, eventually get
homogenized into something safe. (They may take honor more seriously than
we do, but each race refers to the same concept when it uses the same
word.)

When it comes to diversity and unity, Trek has always wanted to have its
cake and eat it too; the similarities inevitably matter more than the
differences. That’s fine – it’s a hopeful message, and since so much
of televised science fiction essentially functions as comfort food, that
approach makes sense. After all, it’s insanely difficult to try to
understand and restate the thought processes of a non-human mind, whether
it’s a fictional alien or a culture’s chosen divinity.

But I’d submit that Trek loses something when it does this, even though
it positively influenced my attitudes towards the Other as a child. (I will
always be grateful for that.) At its core, the people we see on the screen
are supposed to be explorers. In the best cases, we’d learn something new
from the screen, or at least be challenged by it. When the “human
perspective” consistently wins the day – when it, in fact, never loses
– Trek begins preaching to the choir.

We understand how humans are supposed to react to the Valakians’ plight.
As Phlox states, baldly and repeatedly, we have an obsession with helping
those in need – particularly if, in a neat twist, we can convince
ourselves we’re superior to them.

This, along with one other thread, is the tie that binds the episode
together. Archer “anthropomorphizes” Porthos, something that flummoxes
Phlox. Tucker’s moved to tears by the plights of fictional characters,
sympathizing with them despite his powerlessness (how could he change
what’s been written?). Cutler criticizes the Valakian/Menk sociological
structure not on the basis of whether it “works” (which is Phlox’s
primary criterion), but whether it’s “right” (a moralistic viewpoint,
with moralism equated with humanity repeatedly during the episode). And
that moralism isn’t even consistent: she chooses to evaluate the
Valakians’ behavior from an anthrocentric perspective, but barely raises
an eyebrow over Phlox’s complicated marital situation because, well,
he’s Denobulan, and they’re different.

That difference is that aforementioned other tie binding the episode
together: Phlox’s sheer alienness. To us, he seems jovial, knowledgeable,
and kind. But that’s our anthrocentric (ugh, I’ve used that word twice)
bias creeping in. In actuality, Phlox sees the world in a fundamentally
separate way from the rest of us. That’s why he’s writing to his
Counterpart in No Man’s Land, the single human living amongst the
Denobulans. Both men are in situations where most of what goes on around
them is kind of recognizable while still being kind of baffling.

This is why we get the sequence where Phlox is confused by Porthos,
confused by the movie, and confused by Cutler’s advances: he reacts
differently from us to the same stimuli.

So Archer states that every principle he holds dear demands that he help
the Valakians – indeed, that compassion guides his judgment, not blinds
it. I imagine those who were most offended by Phlox’s “misunderstanding
of evolution,” as I’ve seen it phrased elsewhere (because God forbid an
alien see the same thing differently), stood and cheered. And for Phlox to
be unmoved by compassion, to be “unmoved” by these people’s
plight…well, that means he’s a monster.

But the episode very clearly shows that Phlox feels, if not exactly
identically to Archer, something very close to his level of sympathy for
the Valakians. The difference between the two men lies not in their
feelings, but in the degree to which they allow those feelings to guide
their judgment. Phlox ISN’T an unfeeling monster: he feels.

Instead, the doctor essentially argues that, by helping the Valakians,
we’d be interfering in something that we perhaps shouldn’t be messing
with. Think back to Tucker’s tears in that movie theatre. If we gave him
editing control in mid-movie, let him change the script and re-shoot the
scenes, it might have a happier ending. He’s also savaging the movie’s
integrity and fundamentally changing “the way it was supposed to be.”
(This would have been more interesting if Enterprise had ever figured out
what to do with the Temporal Cold War and its focus on altering vs.
restoring timelines, but I digress.)

Phlox’s argument is that nature has been writing and composing the
Valakians’ extinction for thousands of years, repeating the same pattern
that’s taken hold on thousands of other worlds that weren’t subjected
to outside interference (even in the name of compassion). In those places
– alluded to throughout the episode – coexistence doesn’t work for
whatever reason, and the end result is that one humanoid race ultimately
reigns supreme, not two.

Archer’s objection – OUR objection – is to say, “Well, if that’s
what nature’s written, then it’s a damn good thing the universe gave us
editing powers.” And indeed, we believe – many have passionately argued
– that to voluntarily withhold one’s editing powers, one’s ability to
assist, is tantamount to committing the atrocity itself.

That is how we see it. That’s how we’re SUPPOSED to see it. That’s
how years of civilization have conditioned us to react.

But Phlox isn’t conditioned that way. His thoughts seem nonsensical or
illogical to many, as they should – he’s not human. So he says that we
shouldn’t interfere.

That’s the point of the episode, if I may speak for the authors: to see
the universe filtered through a decidedly inhuman mindset, to have our
willingness to invest emotion in others (at least to the degree that we
allow that empathy and consideration for the needs of others to dictate our
decisions) questioned.

The point is NOT to be the “first Prime Directive story.” Yes, Archer
makes an allusion to the future creation of the Directive. But T’Pol
points out that the Valakians have made first contact with warp-capable
species. In fact, the story neatly decouples noninterference from the far
more baggage-ridden Directive, and chooses to use that ideal – one we’d
surely struggle with were we ever forced to abide by it – as a mirror to
use for questioning the nature and justification for our ideologies and
thought processes.

So yes, you can be offended by the episode’s conclusion. In fact,
you’re supposed to be: the human rationale didn’t carry the day, and
there’s really no way for us to cope with that.

But since the episode set out to be a show in which alien mindsets and
opinions weren’t immediately dismissed (as poor T’Pol is throughout the
first twelve episodes) or reshaped into something that reflects
humanity’s versions of the same things, I can’t understand why people
are giving it zeros, let alone saying it’s the worst episode of all time.

“It offends me!” Yeah. And? Was the acting bad? The score unimpressive?
The characterization insincere? (That’s kind of a big deal, but “Dear
Doctor” is relentlessly true to its characters even as it allows them, in
Archer’s case, to change a bit.)

To the point that one can make objective statements about art, I don’t
believe one can objectively say any of those things. By television’s
standards, the acting, score, and characterization are good, fine, or
excellent – take your pick, but they’re not bad. The makeup design is
perhaps a bit bland, and maybe the CGed city is showing its age, but we all
know that’s not why people freaked out over the episode.

People reacted as they did because the writers went looking for ways to
freak them out by allowing an inhuman mindset to carry the day. Even though
that’s a difficult thing to convincingly write, they did it: the
prevailing reaction was that Phlox’s conclusion was inhuman, was
offensive.

Those people who share that reaction are the ones who should be giving this
show high praise. I can’t think of another episode – not “A Matter of
Honor,” “Darmok,” “The Inner Light,” or too many DS9 eps to count
– where Trek more convincingly explored how an alien would approach
existence, let alone existence’s grayer areas.

Thus I can say something I rarely say: the conclusion bothered me, and in
doing so earned my respect.

I agree with historypeats that aliens are bound to have an "inhuman
mindset". But while I might accept that Phlox comes to his conclusion, I
will never accept that Archer, who has the ultimate decision, can justify
this outcome on moral grounds.

Phlox might have this crude, almost religious view on evolution, where you
cannot interfere in nature even if someone begs you for help. But Archer
would have to overrule Phlox on this one, and if the cost is losing Phlox
as the ship's doctor, than this is a small price to pay.

If this is truly part of the morality Phlox lives by, he is not fit to
serve in Starfleet anyway. By the same reasoning he could deny mankind a
cure for a deadly disease in the future, because we hinder the evolution of
chimpanzees. Hello Planet of the Apes.

Maybe I'm being naive and simplistic, but my perspective on the situation
is thus: Somebody is sick, I have a cure, I cure the sick. End of story.

What the "doctor" did and was supported by the "captain" in doing is
unconscionable and, in some jurisdictions, actually illegal.

Archer himself said it, and I paraphrase: Every time you help somebody who
is sick you are interfering with nature, i.e. evolution. I cannot see how
that, entirely correct, view has been disannulled by the present
circumstances. Should a bully not have his/her cancer treated? Should the
Tutsi tribe of Rwanda be denied cure for AIDS?

Not giving them warp technology is one thing, and perfectly justifiable,
but this is an outrage. And for the two to be cast as some sort of
morally-superior benefactors causes a really uneasy feeling in me toward
Star Trek.

Having said all that, this IS a good, intriguing show. It might not merit
four stars but three, yes.

Certainly Archer's decision here isn't nearly as bad as Picard's in
"Homeward", since the Menk would preserve culture even if the Valakians die
off. Still I agree with most of the points brought up against Archer here.

By the way, according to Memory Alpha, we have UPN to blame for Archer
agreeing with Phlox. The original script had Phlox disobeying Archer's
orders to give them the cure.

To anyone who defends this episode, I say this: You are defending an
episode where the characters commit genocide. Not merely genocide, but
extinction of an intelligent species. Genocide through withholding rather
than act, but genocide nonetheless. Which the episode holds as the
preferable outcome.

If your conclusions lead to genocide, I'd say that's a crystal clear sign
that you screwed up somewhere down the line.

The way its presented here, it's Nature itself that wants the Valakinas out
of the picture to make way for the Menk awakening. If that's the case, then
even if Phlox "cures" them, Nature will just do it some other way, and
probably a faster and harsher method the second time around...

Genocide would be a willful act of murder upon a group of people, Archer
simply chose not to interfere with the progression of a planet's natural
cycle. Plus the Valakians were exploitative, and allowing for the
underclass to more quickly revolutionize and make it so that the planet
isn't divided by thin lines of wealth makes his decision even more
understandable. This is called ambiguity: You can keep a race alive that
has another race enslaved forever, or allow that power-holding race to die
and let the Menk flourish for the first time in history. There is no
clearly correct answer. This isn't a children's fairy tale.

The argument that historypeats uses to defend this episode is that one
man's perspective overrules the perspectives of millions of dying men,
women, and children, and we should applaud the courage of the writers for
this. Diversity!

The opinions of the few winning out over millions, extinguishing their
voices, their unique worldview, is a triumph of a writer's understanding of
diversity?

That's so completely broken at a basic level, that I can't debate it. If
you can't see the problem with it, please ask the person reading this post
to you to strangle you with the nearest power cable.

The discussion going on here contains lots of interesting facets. Please
excuse me if the following one has already been mentioned before.

Regarding the cure Phlox has found here, something sounds peculiar. He
stated clearly that the disease is genetic and will ultimately lead to the
extinction of all Valakians, which means that every Valakian is or will be
affected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding (being a
scientist, but not in biology or medicine) there are only two ways to treat
such a disease.

1. One could manipulate the Valakians' DNA (or whatever substance their
genome is coded with). Each individual, or at least their reproductive
cells, would have to be treated this way in order not to let the disease
resurface again one generation later. This would leave to a completely and
irreversibly new lifeform, at which point I fully understand and subscribe
Archer's point of view.

2. If Phlox does not heal the source of the disease (i. e. the genetic
anomalies), he must have found a substance which removes the symptoms of
the sickness, or at least diminish them well enough to make a reasonable
life possible. Obviously, creating such a medicine is beyond the Valakians'
possibilities, because they lack either resources or technology. (I mean,
they must have at least thousands of medics who have worked on this matter
for many years, and there comes our doctor finding the cure in, what, two
or three months at most?)

Keep in mind: One day, each Valakian individual will have to be treated
this way, making them dependent on alien technology or meds they cannot
produce themselves. The episode shows how much the ship's resources were
strained just to help these people momentarily. Who could provide enough
resources to guarantee permanent help? (Even with the Federation in place,
this would be a huge challenge.)

Still not regarding the possibility that an error occurs in the whole
calculation. Come on, all who question Phlox's morality: why do you think
his science must be impeccable while his opinion is not? Any good scientist
should be humble enough not to consider him-/herself this superior to the
rest of the universe. (Granted, this necessary himility was not really
stressed in the episode.)

I do understand why many of you don't like the implications of Phlox's
decision. My point is that all other decisions lead to comparably difficult
consequences, since this is not a one-time matter. We are talking about
responsibilities far beyond anything Archer or Phlox could be prepared for.

Your comments might have applicability if Star Trek ever let science get in
the way of story, or if Doctor Phlox brought up your concerns in story.
Given that he didn't, I am forced to assume that his cure would have no
such complications.

Like most of the above poster i generally disagree with the point that the
episode seemed geared towards. That being said whilst I disagree with the
strange understanding that led to Phlox conclusion (which was a belief not
a scientific argument)I still like this episode. historypeats mentioned it
earlier, it was slightly refreshing to see an episode that in which the
humans view was follow so predictably (like most of the first season) I
agree with the humans view in this case but i like that the show disagreed
with my view. it made me articulate why this view was wrong.

The question of genocide is an interesting one, particular whether the
failure to act (when one can reasonably act) can be substituted for a
'diliberate' intention to destroy in whole or part a particular culture.
Honestly I'm not sure, but i want to see an argument for why it is or ist,
not a statement that it is or isn't.

Disregarding for a moment the show's conclusion, I would say that this
episode was about a 5 out of 10. Average. Not good, but not awful.

However, realizing what the purpose of this episode was; specifically to
show the viewers that the Prime Directive might be a good idea, and that
Archer & Co might be thinking along the lines of creating such a
directive, I have to say this episode was an utter failure.

I've heard that the script originally had a completely different ending,
but the Powers That Be Suits over at Paramount made the writers change the
script to show total unity amongst Archer, Phlox and crew, and to tone down
any "inter-crew" drama.

We can only speculate about what the original ending was, but all it would
have taken to make the story MUCH more compelling, is that Archer &
Phlox provided the antidote, and then have the antidote turn out to be
lethal to the Menk. Or to have the antidote be so production-intesive that
it requires all then land and resources of the Menk, and thus they are
utterly wiped out.

This would have left us with a much more believable and compelling argument
for why the Prime Directive is something that Starfleet needs to think
about. It would've also provided us with a much more interesting drama, if
let's say, Archer ordered Phlox to provide the antidote against Phlox's
wishes. Then later when it turns out that giving the antidote leads to the
destruction of the Menk, Archer would have to live with those consequences,
which would add some character to his rather bland characterization, and it
would also provide a great motivator for going ahead with the Prime
Directive. But I guess that would go against Star Trek's almighty Reset
Button.

Instead we are treated to a bit of Nazi propaganda which basically boils
down to; if you're not genetically pure enough to survive without the
benefit of medicine, you are genetically inferior and deserve to die!

Does everyone realise how crazy they are? Lots of people are
pro-evolution....then comes an episode promoting the idea of "survival of
the fittest" and everyone screams and shouts...??? Is that hypocritical?

@Keiren: Your statement is a total non-sequitur, and a straw man to boot.
Firstly, there's no more such a thing as being "pro-evolution" than there
is being "pro-gravity." Evolution is an observable fact: Species evolve
and adapt, or they stagnate and become extinct.

Secondly, although evolution means that the "fittest" (read: Fastest,
smartest, etc.) tend to outlive and outbreed those less so, it has nothing
to do with human health care. When sick or injured, we help ourselves,
each other, and even animals. That does not contradict the empirical fact
of evolution in any way. If anything, it is usually the religious
("anti-evolution" types) who have the attitude of "we will comply with
whatever 'god' decrees."

* * * * *

@Cassander: If this matter came before a court, a judgment going on for
tens if not hundreds of pages would be issue justifying the outcome one way
or the other. You can't expect a comprehensive answer to your query, but
I'll try.

There are basically two views: Either the stricken society is an insular
system, with which humans must not interfere in any way or it is not. This
issue is not so much about the right or wrong of helping those in need as
it is about mere interference, of ANY kind.

If it was a relatively simple question of providing a cure, then the
dilemma is: (1) We avert a lethal pandemic, which may subsequently enable
the cured species to exterminate another, or (2) we do nothing, allow a
genocide by non-interference to proceed, probably leading to the extinction
of a species. To my mind, the answer here is rather easy: When a person is
sick, we use our medical savvy to cure them, without having any guarantee
that they will not one day turn into a serial killer. Even people who are
incarcerated or disabled, or who are ex-convicts, are not denied medical
care. Why, then, should a society, even if ALL of it (doubtful!) is
depraved?

Now, do we INTERFERE or not? One could argue that the mere act of
contacting even a single person of a society or even just visiting the
societal environment constituted interference. After all, contact affects
both/all the individuals concerned, mentally and physically. Who knows how
the day of a person would have progressed if they had not stopped to say
hello to us...

Let me throw a hypothetic scenario A your way: John Doe of Species X is
walking along in a wood. He steps on a twig. The twig scares off a lethal
predator. Mr. Doe becomes a successful scientist who develops warp drive
five years down the line.

Now here's a scenario B: Say you beam down on John Doe's planet, poke
around a bit and in the process step on that twig. You beam back up,
having come in contact with nobody. Mr. Doe comes walking along but
because the twig is gone, the predator mauls him to death. The society
doesn't discover warp drive for another fifty years, if EVER.

See my point?

If we give or show an object, provide food, share ideas, etc. to/with a
society, we affect it. It is, in a way, interference. Of course,
describing the notion of, say, democracy is different from teaching how to
build a fire. But who draws a line? Protesting "honor" killings: Is that
interference or exchange?

What if the males of a species were engaged in systematic marital rape of
the females, and they (the males only) were facing extinction? Would
providing the cure constitute unacceptable interference, because we'd be
assisting the perpetuation of a disagreeable practice? Would facilitating
parthenogenesis (enabling the females to procreate WITHOUT the errant
males) and letting the males die off without a cure be acceptable
interference?

I don't think there's a fully right or wrong answer here. If we affect a
society or a societal environment in ANY way -- even just by visiting it --
I would say we are interfering. Past that, the degree to which we allow
ourselves to continue interfering is decided on a case-by-case basis. Do
we say nothing about ourselves, do we only share our philosophies with
them, do we give them food, do we arm them, do we give them advanced
technology...? It's a slippery slope, and there is NO way of knowing how
ANY of those actions (or inaction) might affect the spacetime of that
society and wider.

@Michael... so you observe evolution, but when you dont like the fact that
it will kill people, it becomes unacceptable?

Second,there are numerous studies where scientists have deformed certain
animals Physically to try and observe them evolve to cope with their
circumstances (fruit flies haveing their wings cut off comes to mind) and
promote change. Here you are saying evolution is not about physical traits
but *fastest* *smartest*

Sooo.....am not saying your wrong here, but this whole moral issue,
evolution, and the ethics regarding evolution seems unclear and complicated
to me.

Last point, religious types do as you say sometimes and sometimes not,some
say "Gods will" others say many hospitals had a lot of religious people
working in them etc etc....

Hmm.... agree with a point made by someone above tho thatthis episode works
in that it provokes a reaction, and gets people thinking, i think we can
all agree on that at least... :)

What does that even MEAN?? "Observe" as in "accept"? Or "observe" as in
"see"? I accept evolution as fact for the simple reason that there is a
preponderance of evidence in its support. To claim that evolution is a
falsehood is tantamount to claiming that each and every species extant
today is IDENTICAL to what that species was like 6000, 60000 or 600000
years ago, which is arrant nonsense. Evolution is not observable in
real-time; a species doesn't evolve over the course of a few minutes, days
or months? What was that fruitfly "experiment" you alluded to supposed to
prove: That species find new ways of accomplishing something when old ways
are cut off? They might, in the same way an Iraqi war vet who had his legs
blown off learns to use prosthetic limbs. But that's not evolution!

Evolution is NOT just about physical traits, no. Who ever said it was?
"Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean only literally "fittest." There's
the smarts, the speed, the agility, as well as a whole lot of luck.

As Nathaniel suggested, you may want to read up on evolution before
launching into a discussion on it.

I also never even implied that evolution was acceptable or unacceptable.
In fact, I specifically said that there was no fully right or wrong answer
to the quandary presented in this show.

However, I do maintain that if medical treatment is denied in the name of
"letting nature take its course," then it's diabolical and supremely
hypocritical to EVER provide ANY kind of help to ANYone. For a physician,
of all people (or whatever), to hold such a view is outrageous.

I'll agree with you about the show's accomplishment in getting people
worked up about it: One of the very, VERY few Star Trek episodes that
managed this in either the Voyager or this series.

@Everyone else: Sorry about the grammatical mistakes littered throughout my
previous message. I hadn't had time to proofread before hitting the Send
button. This one's probably the same! :D

Doctor Flox refers to "lower animals" and "anthropomorphizing" of a beagle,
but this is a result of a common misunderstanding of evolution. There are
no "higher or lower" animals, according to Darwin. There are no inferior or
superior species. If there were, "superior" or "higher" aliens would be
entitled to hold humans in cages, as the doctor holds non-humanoid animal
species in cages. He is wrong to do that, just as the various aliens are
wrong to hold Kirk, Picard and Janeway captive in holding cells for
analysis and experimentation. In fact the very first Star Trek episode,
with Captain Pike, illustrated that theme perfectly. As for
"anthropomorphizing" the beagle in fact is intelligent enough to understand
his human's voice -- not what he is saying exactly, but the emotional
content of his voice, and basic messages. Sentient, intelligent, emotional
creatures, whether beagle or human or Vulcan or cow, all deserve basic
moral consideration. That's why it is a contradiction for Archer to eat one
and love the other, especially since eating the cow is not necessary for
his health. Plants can provide all the protein, iron, B12, and other
nutrients the human body needs. It is also wrong for the doctor to hold the
animals in his lab like that. I am surprised that as a "higher" species he
does not know that. I am disappointed at this portrayal of the Federation
and Star Fleet, but encouraged to know that a century later they have
evolved morally enough to grasp all of this. Apparently the use of
replicators helped them make the adjustment. Of course we don't need
replicators. Anyway, interesting episode, especially Flox' remarks
regarding the curiosity of human emotions and reproduction. Seeing
ourselves through alien eyes helps to see that our behaviours could be
regarded as strange. I also wonder how the beagle or the osmotic eel sees
us.

The assumption that technology confers "superiority" and the confusion
surrounding the notion of evolution, wrongly believing that it is
hierarchical - seems to be common in the Star Trek world (and in our own).
But the doctor's exposure to the Mink and Seven of Nine's exposure to the
Vindu both have common themes: so-called "primitive" people are not
necessarily "inferior" just because they do not have space-age or
industrial technology. That same lesson should apply to all species, not
just humans or humanoids. Hierarchical notions of "superiority" should be
eschewed as wrong, especially since, from a scientific point of view, they
are based on a profound misunderstanding of evolution -- one that Darwin
himself rejected (see the works of Stephen Jay Gould on this subject, and
James Rachel's interpretation of the moral implications of Darwinism in his
book Created From Animals). Star Trek frequently comments on racism among
other species and the potential of fraternity among sentient species -- I
just wish the writers would take this more to heart and show 22nd to 24th
century humans as more enlightened with regard to non-humans. Archer
exercises compassion towards humanoids, but that sentiment should be
extended to all non-humanoid sentient life forms as well. Eventually this
does become Starfleet policy, fortunately.

The ethicist Tom Regan came up with a theory called "environmental fascism"
that describes Archer's reasoning quite well. He said that the idea that we
ought to ignore individual rights in order to safeguard some conception of
nature is fascist. The precursor of the Prime Directive, in this case, is
flawed, because it is based on a conception of what is "natural." This
conception is entirely constructed by human judgement. Basic human
(humanoid) rights and compassion are being ignored by Archer. If aliens
visited Earth and had the cure for cancer you would think they'd share it.
If they did not, because by not doing so it caused humans to die for the
sake of the "natural evolution" of a planet that would be wrong. At the
very least the decision should have been referred back to Earth and Vulcan
for consideration. For Archer and the doctor to arbitrarily decide seems
impetuous at best, and criminal at worst. The decision might help the Mink
and it might not. What if the Mink die as well? What if aliens invade the
de-populated planet. The chance for a humanitarian act was missed. Citing
"evolution" as the reason is poor reasoning.

@Jack: Well, if we completely abdicate any and all responsibility for each
other, then every man truly is a proverbial island. If you don't intervene
to prevent a genocide, then why would you intervene to help somebody in
distress by the side of the road? Why would you help an old lady across
the street? Doesn't that run contrary to the human nature and collective
human experience? Is that even desirable?!

I'm glad this topic is given such a rich and passionate argument by so
many; I think this episode was exceptional.

Here's what I'll say on the subject: This is not a question of simply
providing aid or curing a disease...as has been rightly pointed out, to
cite "evolution" as an excuse for inaction is equally ridiculous.
Presumably, a relatively evolved species like humans are able to "cure"
such diseases because they have evolved into scientists.

The question of the hour is about stakes--on the one hand, many seem to
agree that when the extinction of a species is the inevitable outcome of
inaction, any moral nuances are rightly cast out in favour of simple human
compassion. It sounds alright in those terms, but only because the stakes
are so high...the problem is our compassion sometimes blinds us to the
larger picture. We see existing as an end unto itself, because,
evolutionarily speaking, we want to exist for as long as possible. This
isn't a question of correcting the injustice of an agressive alien culture
against another or aiding the victims of some isolated natural disaster,
we're talking about one crew, one man taking responsibility for the
ultimate fate of an entire species, and by proxy an entire civilisation.
Becoming extinct by way of your own genes is not "genocide."

What Archer realises, finally, in this episode is that holding up human
values an example is one thing, but inflicting them, even upon request, on
a scale beyond the comprehension or purview of what any individual can
possibly apprehend is hubristic in the extreme.

To quote the ever-wise Picard, "[t]he Prime Directive has many different
functions, not the least of which is to protect us. It keeps us from
allowing our emotions to overrule our judgment."

Of course it wouldn't. That's the whole point--responding with compassion
is something a person can do to another person, but when it gets to this
scale, responding emotionally to the plight or fate of an entire
civilisation, the nature of the situation has changed. Society's don't feel
pain or comfort, people do. Archer demonstrates larger thinking here in not
indulging his smaller, humanitarian impulses. It is a decision which
requires emotional detachment. And that's why the arguments against his
choice stem from emotional reactions like empathy with the doomed
Valakians.

On the human level, it would have been better if the Valakians had not
known about the cure; that would have been an act of human compassion to
the isolated and small group of individuals whom Archer told about the
cure.

Your question is rife with exactly the kind of emotionalism I'm criticising
:

1) You've reduced the whole situation to "saving lives" or its inverse
"Intentionally killing an entire species." The situation is a lot more
complicated than that; a nuanced problem requires nuanced reasoning, not
reactionism.

2) You've boiled it down to "bad" or (implicitly) "good." This is a useless
simplification. "Good" and "bad" are blunt guide-posts used for children to
keep them from harming themselves or others before they've learnt enough to
make mature decisions.

Anyone in Archer's position would (and should) feel awful about having to
make his decision (if there's a flaw in the episode, it's perhaps that this
point isn't carried through enough), but it is the only sane answer--the
consequences of his taking action are too huge to contend with; if he never
existed or never made contact, their fate would be the same. It is, as I
said, a profound and dangerous hubris to step in and decide, for whatever
reasons, that one's own compassion is the great arbiter of right and wrong.

I see a injured person by the side of the road. They are hurt, badly. They
beg for my help. I ponder it for a bit, then leave them without a backwards
glance. While helping them might be the right thing to do, it might not be.
They could be a ordinary person who needs help, but they could also be a
psycho who ends up murdering someone. Less melodramatically, the injured
could be a mean, nasty person who beats their spouse and spits on
children.

I have no way of knowing. The decision is just too big for me. I don't feel
too bad. After all, if I never existed or made contact, that person's fate
would be the same.

P.S: In response to your first point, I have yet to see a justification of
the supposed "complication" of the situation that doesn't involve an
abhorrent misunderstanding of evolution and biology.

"Just the fact that so many people have commented on the episode gives it
its 4-star rating in my opinion."

In which case Plan 9 from Outer Space must be one of the greatest movies
ever made. So many people have written reviews of it, after all.

**********

Jay:

"I'm curious...all the people calling Phlox's act evil - would he still be
evil if he had been unable to create a 'cure'?"

What a ridiculous question. If I saw you lying unconscious on a railroad
track with a train barrelling down, would I be considered evil if I
couldn't save you because I couldn't reach you in time? Of course not.
But what if I could save you, and chose not to? Don't you think that would
make me liable for moral judgment?

**********

Jack:

"The people who seem to be arguing for the technological fix over the
natural flow here (presumably they are the same people that would argue for
Tuvix's continued artificial existence over the natural lives of Tuvok and
Neelix..."

No, we wouldn't, and for precisely the same reasons we're arguing against
you here. What happened to Tuvok and Neelix was reversible. What is
happening to the Valakians is reversible.

"...if an alien race were at Earth approximately 65 million years ago,
either as a race indigenous to that era, or having time travelled there
deliberately, and prevented the impact, would that have also been moral?"

Well, that sort of depends, doesn't it? If they saved the dinosaurs hoping
to extinguish humanity, then I'd say that's very definitely an immoral
interference in the natural order. If they saved the dinosaurs not knowing
what that would mean for the future of the planet, then I'd say it's an
amoral action. Questions of right and wrong wouldn't enter into it.

"I suspect I'll hear the "dinosaurs weren't saentient" argument, but even
if we knew that for certain (we don't), is that relevent?"

Umm...yes, we can figure out whether dinosaurs were sentient. Sentience is
the ability to feel and perceive. Dinosaurs could obviously do both. They
were sentient beings, as is (say) Porthos. They were not, however,
intellectually advanced in any way, which is what I take you to mean by the
term.

"They would have eventually become so..."

Umm, what? You say we can't know whether dinousaurs were "sentient" in
your usage of the term, but you can claim with absolute certainty that they
would have become so? Prove it.

**********

historypeats:

Your defense of the episode is thoughtful and eloquent, but thoughtfulness
in the defense of vice is still not virtue. I want to consider one remark
you made in particular, which I consider to be the crux of where you've
gone wrong:

"Phlox’s argument is that nature has been writing and composing the
Valakians’ extinction for thousands of years, repeating the same pattern
that’s taken hold on thousands of other worlds that weren’t subjected
to outside interference..."

First, the Prime Directive, as origially envisioned, was clearly a call to
avoid interfering in the CULTURAL development of another society. It was
not a license to stand by while an avoidable natural calamity completely
unrelated to the society's development wiped under hundreds of millions of
innocent lives.

Second, if you truly believe that what nature "writes and composes" should
not be manipulated, how do you justify any medicine you take, any
inoculations you receive? You are arguing that the massive strides forward
taken by our society in the areas of health and medicine (and in a hundred
other areas where we have interfered with "natural" processes) are wrong.
Yet I bet you take advantage of each and every one of them...eyeglasses,
perhaps, to correct a natural vision process, or perhaps an inhaler to cope
with a natural condition of asthma. What makes these interferences with
nature right, and the ones proposed in Dear Doctor wrong? I don't think
you can come up with a principled answer.

**********

Paul York:

"If there were, 'superior' or 'higher' aliens would be entitled to hold
humans in cages, as the doctor holds non-humanoid animal species in cages.
He is wrong to do that..."

I do hope you don't own a pet bird. Or hamster. Or iguana. Or for that
matter, a cat or a dog. On your own terms, it would be wrong of you to
keep them cooped up in your place.

"Sentient, intelligent, emotional creatures, whether beagle or human or
Vulcan or cow, all deserve basic moral consideration. That's why it is a
contradiction for Archer to eat one and love the other, especially since
eating the cow is not necessary for his health."

So it's wrong for us to eat animals. BS. I have two steaks tonight, just
for you.

**********

Elliott:

"2) You've boiled it down to 'bad' or (implicitly) 'good.' This is a
useless simplification. 'Good' and 'bad' are blunt guide-posts used for
children to keep them from harming themselves or others before they've
learnt enough to make mature decisions."

Our greatest ethical philosophers -- among them Aristotle, Epicurus,
Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill -- have all had very different ideas of
what "good" was. The vast majority of them would agree on at least one
thing, though: your idea of "good" is atrocious.

If I came upon you dying in an alleyway, to note what your fate would have
been had I not seen you is pointless, isn't it? Nathaniel absolutely hit
the nail on the head in his response to you.

I dare you to tell me that if you had a severe, life-threatening illness,
and you made an appeal to someone who had the means to help, and they said
"Sorry, can't upset the natural order of things"...that you would look upon
that person's reaction as "sane." I dare you.

so i kinda like this one and it doesn't bother me too much, I know what
they were getting at even if the episode completely balls it up at the end
there. I really would like to have seen that alternate ending of the script
though, it sounds a lot better than what we got. And with the ending just
have a good ol' fanwank "and eventually they were rescued by, oh, let's
say... the Vulcans." Now if I could just get the Enterprise novels to say
that.

"Well, if we completely abdicate any and all responsibility for each other,
then every man truly is a proverbial island. If you don't intervene to
prevent a genocide, then why would you intervene to help somebody in
distress by the side of the road? Why would you help an old lady across the
street? Doesn't that run contrary to the human nature and collective human
experience? Is that even desirable?!"

Well that's fine, but doesn't really address what I'd said that you were
replying to. Not stopping to help someone in distress on the roadside
doesn't suddenly make you responsible for putting them in distress in the
first place.

Archer "played God" by having the audacity to predict complex outcomes, not
by his actions.

I'm stunned by how determined some people are to cling to their moral
relativism. 95% of the people in this discussion have experienced a moral
instinct, and all of a sudden it's primitive "emotionalism"? We could sit
the 5% down in front of footage of Somalian war gangs, and they'd still sip
tea and murmur "Hmmm, how enlightening, let's all sit down and have a
discussion on whether this is good or not. After all, it's the discussion
that matters."

I don't buy it. Modern ethics have rarely made a distinction between active
intervention and inaction when they both lead to poor results. You see it
in most major ethicist's works, you see it in Asimov's Three Laws, it's
everywhere. The argument of "we can't possibly be responsible for deciding
the fate of billions" works both ways, and both ways lead to a dead end
because we can't possibly predict the outcome.

THAT'S where the hubris in this situation lies - in thinking we could
predict what happens precisely enough to decide wisdom in the present.
Starfleet made what amounts to a snap decision in terms of scientific
observation. They should have spent decades studying this planet before
coming to this call. They never even bothered to consider that the two
species might have a symbiotic relationship and that destroying either one
might destroy the other. (I just described Earth's biosphere, by the way.
Interconnected and interdependent, all of it.) Nor have they considered
galactic consequences. What if the Valakians' DNA one day provided the cure
to the Tellurian plague? All kinds of scientific angst has been expended on
the extinction of minor animal species here on Earth - why doesn't THAT
apply in outer space, especially if there's some so-called "plan"? By
Trek's own rules, it was an extinct species that held the key to Earth's
survival in Star Trek IV.

To decide that a species' fate is determined and has no value to the rest
of galactic society - THAT is where the playing God happened in this
episode. Got a problem with the power to decide the fate of billions? Well,
if technology has given us the right to save entire species, and if the
definition of divinity includes the ability to save entire species, then I
SUBMIT THAT WE ARE GODS. And does it not behoove God to be benevolent? The
real arrogance in "playing God" lies in predicting outcomes, not taking
action - Riker's argument in "Pen Pals". If we're not prepared to take
tremendous risks for the sake of using our technology for benevolence, then
we don't deserve to have it. With great power comes great responsibility.

I find it interesting that our heroic Starfleet captains have violated the
Prime Directive repeatedly over the years without being keel-hauled. What
was it, nine times by Picard by TNG's fourth season alone? That's either
bad writing or a veiled admission by the Federation (and by proxy the
writers) that the Prime Directive in its pure form is an incoherent and
untenable document, with unacceptable implications, and that they don't
really buy it at all. It works much better as a guideline than as General
Order One.

The script for "Dear Doctor", for its part, was not born from the same root
that most of Trek was. It's merely thinly-disguised white liberal guilt and
a brutish overreaction to American colonialism. I get what the writers were
trying to say, but it didn't work. I fail to see how we keep our humanity
by abandoning our compassion.

Jammer, yours is the first review of this episode I’ve seen that
doesn’t condemn Archer and Phlox to the death penalty. I’ve formed an
opinion of this episode over the years from watching the episode quite a
few times and chatting Star Trek on the various message boards. The whole
premise the episode boasts as a “prime directive” episode is just crap
I think. Why does Archer have to commit to a decision right now? Why not
take Phlox's findings back to the Inter-Species Medical Exchange and allow
them to deliberate/validate? Come back later? Archer did give the
Valikisians medicine that would give them an additional 10 years to find a
cure, so the out of control rage in most of these comments are uncalled for
I believe. No genocide was committed or allowed here. Loved Crewman Cutler
and was looking forward to seeing more of her as the series progressed. So
sad that was not allowed to happen. I also loved Phlox’s
conversation/narration throughout this episode.

Archer agreed with Phlox for all the wrong reasons. Whether it was genetic
or not is really irrelevant. I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but
what difference does it make? Archer should have not made a planetary
decision like this on one doctor’s findings. He should have withheld an
untested and invalidated cure because of the catastrophic damage an error
could cause. Not because "it's genetic".

If you really wanted a "Prime Directive episode" that lays the grounds for
the necessity of guidance for a non-interference policy, Archer should have
made the mistake and the results should have been catastrophic and
devastating. His human compassion should have won the day! He should have
disregarded Phlox’s recommendation and ordered him to administer the
"cure". What does Archer’s decision teach us with regard to the need for
"some directive"? Nothing.

From a morality play persepctive, the main problem with this episode is
that it is a TV episode, in other words, all of the possible issues,
potential solutions and consequences cannot possibly be explored in the 45
minute script. It would be difficult enough to do this in real life.

I disagree with most the commentators here. This episode isn't about
destiny or wrong understanding of science.
But, Trek in itself is immoral.
It is in fact the epitome of the Prime Directive dilemma. Starfleet/
Federation is not supposed to interfere with the development of species
that aren't warp-capable. The Menk and Phlox's talk about evolution is just
to point out that giving the Valakians a cure for their disease will have
repercussions.

In fact, from a strictly Trek perspective, even if the Menk didn't exist,
the Valakians still should not have been given the cure.

Wasn't sure whether to enter in this discussion since all the arguments
have already been raised. However, I simply couldn't leave it at "the
episode is proof that Trek itself is immoral".

I'm sorry, however did you reach that conclusion? Or perhaps I
misunderstood? The fact that so many Trek fans take offense at this episode
proofs to me that really this (and possibly the entire Enterprise show)
doesn't deserve the Trek label.

I personally gave up watching Enterprise after the first season and this
was one of the episodes that convinced me that this wasn't the Trek I grew
up with and loved. Yes, Voyager was flawed but it was still Trek. This
simply isn't, at least to me.

First of all, as far as I remember the Prime Directive stated that the
Federation should not interfere in the cultural development of (pre-Warp)
civilizations or share technology that was beyond that species'
capabilities. It certainly didn't prevent giving humanitarian help, if help
was requested. They actually made a point of that numerous times on Voyager
and I believe in TNG as well.

I will concede that the principle behind the Prime Directive may be
inherently flawed, but Trek, as I understand it, was always about striving
for the best in humanity, i.e. compassion, peaceful interaction etc. So I
'm sorry to say that I have a huge problem with an argument that wants to
take this episode as proof that "from a Trek perspective" Phlox and
Archer's actions were justified.

Nope, they weren't. Btw. in our society denial of assistance is still a
criminal offense which is precisely what Archer and the Dear Doctor were
doing when they denied the Valakians access to a cure that was already
available.

At its best Star Trek can be taken allegorical, as political or social
commentary presented in a Sci-Fi setting. But the "message" here seems to
be that one should stand idly by while other people suffer because, hey,
maybe they're meant to and as long as we aren't affected we shouldn't
interfere.

So this episode does need to be judged for what it tries to say about
society. The message it gives seems to be: "The weak will (and should)
perish". Sound familiar?

Sorry for the rant and the numerous grammatical errors (I'm not a native
speaker). Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I did
feel the need to express just why I dislike this episode so much. I'm sure
some people will disagree with what I perceive as the philosophy behind
Star Trek (at its best) and that's fine as well.

It is important to note that the two writers who wrote this script also
wrote a fairly mediocre episode: Breaking the Ice, and an annoyingly bad
continuity violating episode: Acquisition. And they wrote... this. It seems
to me that they have very little understanding of Star Trek at all if they
think this is the way the Prime Directive works.

This is not Trek. It's utterly immoral as most everyone has already pointed
out. It has no understanding of evolution. It's almost like I'm listening
to a creationist rehash their beliefs in an almighty force guiding the
universe. Evolution is equated to God.

Archer makes the decision he makes only because the script says so. Even
first season Archer would never make this decision. He breaks a bunch of
Sulliban out of an internment camp in Detained. He didn't stop and not do
it just because he would be "interfering with their natural evolution" or
some idiocy. Phlox should know better. He's a respected physician. I can
never look at him the same way again. To me he will always be a budding
sociopath just waiting to spring out.

And even with this utterly immoral issue going on, the writers of this
episode still have to be distracted by some idiocy about Phlox going out on
a date and going to a movie and not understanding why humans would be
crying at a movie. And framing it with a letter. Data's Day this is not.
It's annoying that that subplot is there during this big philosophical
issue. In GOOD Trek episodes of the past, there wasn't an annoying B-plot
that served no purpose whatsoever.

Ultimately this isn't Trek. At least this episode isn't anyway. This
episode is not in my canon. Not in no Star Trek world because it flies in
the face of everything that Star Trek stands for.

And not in a good DS9 kind of way. Sure Sisko does similar things but he
would never have done something like this. He's torn apart by sacrificing
six lives in In the Pale Moonlight to save the Alpha Quandrant in a war
with the Dominion. Do you even think he would begin to allow massive
genocide like this for no good reason?

Most of Enterprise is dull and boring and pointless. It's rehashed action
scene after action scene that prove that B & B clearly have no idea how
to write a Trek episode. Looking forward to the third and fourth seasons
when they barely write anything. But this is the one episode that made me
angry that these writers were ever associated with Trek. They wrote a
pointless episode, a dumb episode, and this highly immoral episode. They
should never have gotten involved with Trek. They are no Michael Pillar,
Ira Steven Behr, Ronald Moore, Hans Beimler, or Michael Taylor. There have
been so many legendary writers on Star Trek, but we have to get this idiot
team who's probably never seen a Star Trek episode and were probably
coached by B & B on how to write. No amount of hand washing will rid
the Trek fandom of this horrible blemish of a spot.

Just because a disease is genetic doesn't mean that we just decide not to
treat it and let it go about because we think that's the way it's supposed
to go that's it's natural evolution. Archer makes a very good point that's
never really addressed throughout the rest of the episode: As a doctor, you
interfere with the natural evolution all the time. You're morally obligated
to help. This is a very good point. Indeed, we work to end things like
Autism and Anemia even though they are genetic. We don't just say "Nope,
can't help you. The almighty process of evolution says this is the way it
has to be." And it is especially pertinent to help these people because
they are dying by the millions every day because of this genetic disorder.
You can't treat evolution as this religious icon. They do. It reminds me of
certain religious beliefs: You can't interfere with God's plan because God
is perfect. They say the same here: You can't interfere with the natural
evolution because that is the way nature intended it to be.

Robert raises an interesting point here: What if the Menk didn't exist.
Would the gruesome Archer/Phlox duo still have withheld the cure from the
Valakians? And would they have been justified in doing whichever they
chose?

As much as I love Trek, I have long known that it actively proselytizes the
irreligious ideology of Secular Humanism. Usually the writers just water
down differing cultures, religions, and beliefs into a murky melting pot of
multiculturalism, and everyone holds hands and smiles with their cultural
relativism.

Except that's not how the game ends with an atheism that holds evolution as
a moral imperative. This episode exemplifies Secular Humanism carried to
its fullest extent - survival of the fittest with the fittest ensuring that
the weak play their part by dying off.

All of you who are defending the ethics of this episode should be ashamed
of yourselves. I pray that none of you will have any authority over any
other human being ever, because your worldview is disgustingly ruthless and
cruel.

@Brian: Don't be absurd. Sorry to burst your bubbly straw man, but I'm an
atheist (indeed, an anti-theist) and I think the "doctor" was 100% wrong.
Hospitals were not a religionists' invention. I would have given the
Valakians the cure. From your comments it is quite evident that you
understand neither atheism nor evolution... - or morality, for that matter.
Don't you at least see that "humanism" and "survival of the fittest" are
by definition mutually exclusive?

This has nothing to do with anybody's religion or Weltanschauung. It could
be sloppy writing or a stroke of genius on the authors' part: Not a single
other episode of Enterprise generated such a heated discussion.

You are right though about the fuzzy kumbaya multiculturalism that pervades
the (latter-day) Trek universe. It's as if every other episode ends or
should end with a group hug. Barf.

There is no contradiction. Secular Humanism posits that humanity is
responsible for engineering its own purpose, ethics, and meaning. But which
man, or group of people, is responsible for defining those things? Is it a
free-for-all - everyone for themselves? No society can function where
everyone defines right and wrong and meaning individually. So how can order
be brought to the chaos?

Enter the experts. The intellectuals. The Ph.D's and scientists. Or perhaps
a doctor and a starship captain. They'll define it all for the rest of us.
They'll tell me what's right and wrong. I can sit back and just trust the
meaning of my life to their capable hands.

But what if I disagree? What if my experts are orbiting my planet in some
spaceship and deciding my death without my input? What if they decide that
it's better, according to their enlightened ideology, if I just die off?
Now my trusted experts have become my enemy.

Those experts, the anointed ones who know what's best, who have progressed
and modernized and redefined all that came before, have defined themselves
as the fittest, and they are ensuring that I die off in order to serve
their irrefutable grand plan for humanity.

There is no contradiction between Secular Humanism and Social Darwinism. In
fact, they play together quite nicely. This episode shows the result.

@Brian:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but behind that lengthy disquisition of yours is a
basic premise that humans are incapable of establishing absolute
moral/ethical values without supernatural interference/guidance.

That is empirically false.

Humans established and refined legal codes far earlier than the advent of
organized religion. Indeed, our ability to do so is what made it possible
for societies to evolve.

In real life, Archer and Phlox would never have been able to do what they
did: They would have had to refer the matter to Star Fleet, which would
then have undertaken what I'd envision to be a protracted judicial process
to arrive at a decision.

Secular Humanism in no way implies or presupposes what you call social
Darwinism. Please, I beg of you, save yourself further embarrassment and
read up on both. Bottom line: The proposition that a person needs "god" in
order to be moral is total nonsense, as can be seen on millions of people
all around the world every single day. Period.

And by the way, belief in "god" rarely stopped anyone doing something
stupid such as committing murder or genocide. Yea, in many instances such
a belief actually precipitated abominable acts of unfathomable cruelty.
Referring to your example of "experts" orbiting your planet, I'd say you'd
stand a helluva lot better chances of not being vaporized if those
"experts" were atheists than if they were god-botherers.

"Archer "played God" by having the audacity to predict complex outcomes,
not by his actions."

Agreed. The first DS9 episode about the genetically enhanced wackos made
the same mistake, at least at first. You can't predict the future of
entire peoples that way, no matter how much DNA Magic you can command. I'm
a fan of Asimov's Foundation series, and psychohistory makes sense up to a
point -- masses of people do tend to have a kind of inertia that keeps them
moving along somewhat predictable paths in ways that the individuals making
up the groups do not. But Asimov's Seldon made it clear that he was
talking probabilities, not certainties. The uncertainties increased as
time passed (which is why there was a Second Foundation of psychohistorians
to keep tweaking the equations) and there was always the chance that some
unexpected variable -- even an individual like the Mule -- could throw the
whole thing off.

There's simply no way they could predict the future of this society
accurately enough to base this kind of a decision on it. To the objections
others have made, here are more off the top of my head: what if the dying
race got a bit peeved about the whole thing and decided to take the other
race out with them? What if the genetic whatsit transfers to the primitive
race 150 years from now, and both races end up extinct? There are just too
many possibilities.

These writers, like many people today, have clearly adopted Darwinism as a
religion that goes beyond the science of natural selection. As others have
said more extensively, there's no "destiny" in evolution. There's
certainly no predicting it. Mutations happen, and if they happen to be
beneficial in their particular time and place, they may be passed on, and
thus species tend to adapt to their environments over time. But most
mutations are harmful or useless, and there have been plenty of
evolutionary dead-ends in Earth's history, even before human interference.
There's no way to know what sort of positive mutation may happen next, or
whether it'll happen to be passed on.

The other mistake they make is in talking about Nature as if humans are
outside it. Humans (and sentient aliens) are part of nature, even in
starships. And considering the writers see evolution as a positive force
for good, why not assume humanity evolved to this point for this reason: to
bring cures to dying species?

Lastly, sins of omission aren't any less egregious than sins of commission.
If you have the ability to cure someone and you don't, that's no better
than if you give him the disease. At that point there's no choice between
interfering or not; you're interfering either way, by giving it or
withholding it. So they could give the cure and both species would live
(with one perhaps subordinate to the other); or withhold the cure and let
one species die (with the other perhaps taking its place). "Do nothing"
was off the table. As such, the choice seems pretty obvious.

One last angle: turn the tables, so the primitive-with-potential culture is
the one that's dying out, while the civilized-but-stagnant snobs are fine
and don't particularly care. Now would our heroes be so willing to leave
things be?

@Nathaniel
I hate to break this to you, but I personally would consider you to be
immoral bordering on evil if you left somebody to die when you had the
means to save them and you didn't feel the slightest bit of guilt in
knowing that you just allowed another human being to die through your
inaction. Look at it this way:
-If you help that person, you have just saved someone's life. You have
prevented almost certain death. Of course, as you said, this person may,
(and I want to stress the fact that I am using the word MAY and not IS) be
a murderer or spouse beater or whatever. So it is POSSIBLE that someone
else will suffer. But on the other hand...
-If you do nothing, that person will almost certainly die. I repeat, not a
person MAY suffer or a person MAY die, but a person WILL die with a high
degree of certainty.
In other words, when given the options of POSSIBLY UNINTENTIONALLY and
INDIRECTLY allowing someone else come to harm by saving this person, and
the other option of ALMOST CERTAINLY having someone die, you choose the
option where it is MORE LIKELY that pain, suffering and death will occur,
and you call that a 'moral' decision.
What. The. Fuck.

Sorry, guess it wasn't clear. I was satirizing the viewpoints of another
poster, one whose views I find as repugnant as you found my post. It wasn't
a statement of my position, but my method of expressing disgust of another
posters view.

Also, as someone who looks at time travel stuff a lot, if i did have the
technology, I would NOT go back in time and kill Hitler, thus (maybe!)
saving 40 million or so lives. I would NOT go back in time and provide a
vaccine for bubonic plague and thus sparing another 10 million or so folks.
I would NOT go back in time to the Challenger launch and advise a
postponement. I would NOT calmly explain to the designer of the Titanic
that his ship design had a critical flaw. I would NOT go back in time...
well I could go on forever really.

When humanity can travel through time - which according to Trek is a
certainty - will all of humanity be by definition, monsters? I mean we're
not going back in time to spare our ancestors all this misery and death!
Or can we instead respect that the Mature decision is not to interfere with
where the cards will fall? All that do-gooder emotion pouring through you
and the switch for a time machine in your hands. The unbelieveable damage
you could do with your irrationality.

Ignore the science on the show. It's merely a vehicle to get us from point
A to B. Yes, yes, I know the writers and producers want us to be proud of
all the science homework they've done. Oliver Stone wants us to think he
did research too. Nonsense, all smoke and mirrors. True astonishment
should be reserved for the real science that actually does seep through.
Trying to make the science real is the only flaw in the episode since it
opens a crack for criticism to sneak in.

Also, not once did I get a Valakians vs. Menks vibe that a lot of the
commenters seem to have picked up. It never seemed to me that Phlox was
affected by them beyond being just another fact on his chart.

What mature decision? The decision to withhold a cure from a dying people?
That's not mature, that's monstrous.

Your time travel analogy doesn't work, by the way. A great argument can be
made for not changing the past -- even if it weren't logically impossible,
as I assume it would be. Indeed, you already made it.

The situation Archer and Phlox faced was one in the present, not the past.
And it is not acceptable reasoning to refuse to act -- to let things take
their course -- because you don't know if the outcome would be better or
worse. Would you really refuse to help a dying man (or a dying race...just
an extension of the same idea) in the present because you don't know what
impact that might have on the future? If so, then your moral instincts are
appalling.

Perhaps my moral instincts are appalling - I can be quite unmoved.
Clinical detachment is the bottom line for me. I prefer to observe and
then act.

The arguement for withholding the cure is not invalid just because you
disagree with it. If anything, I suppose it being such a hard decision to
make is why I refer to it as a "mature" decision. You see, I'm jaded from
all these folks around me today that seem incapable of sitting down and
thinking things through from every perspective, even absolutely vile ones
and instead just act impetuously from an emotional based spark. I can't
really articulate a justification of the decision in the episode but it
feels like the right decision to me. Maybe it's my "gut" that's appalling
or perhaps just a bit of half-digested cheese. I'll concede that Phlox's
science is a bit shaky and perhaps there was some favortism for the Menk
but I'll still stick by the core decision even if I can't really explain
why.

Can we agree that they should have not gotten involved in the first place?
If we can't, then perhaps that's the root since I'm judging from the
viewpoint of non-involvement in the first place.

Or did you just want to call my moral instincts appalling? :)

Oh I agree with you by the way in an earlier post above, you did mention
that the PD was not about letting a race be destroyed. I think on TOS
there was even an episode where Kirk had to stop an asteroid from hitting a
native type culture. Very pre-warp. Just sparing lives. My moral
instincts have no qualms about redirecting asteroids away from pastoral
worlds I am happy to report!

So you're "jaded from all these folks around me today that seem incapable
of sitting down and thinking things through from every perspective" and yet
are ok with making a moral decision based on your "gut" instincts..

Well, you're right about one thing, at least -- the argument for
withholding the cure must stand or fall on its own merits. My feelings
have no bearing on its worth. But it does not stand based on your
feelings, either. And John was quite right to point out both your
hypocrisy and your poor reasoning.

"Can we agree that they should have not gotten involved in the first
place?"

If you'll recall the episode, the Valakians made contact with the
Enterprise. Archer didn't go looking to interfere in anything. Again, I
question your instincts. If someone places a call to your house asking for
help, and you know it's a potentially serious situation, do you just refuse
to answer?

And you never did answer my question. If someone was dying and they asked
for your help, would you refuse to aid them -- because you hadn't observed
enough yet before you acted?

The issue here isn't so much that they allowed them to die, but that they
had the means to prevent it.

If Phlox had been unable to determine a way to fix the problem, the
Valakians would still be facing extinction, but (hopefully) people wouldn't
be calling them monsters for allowing it. So the issue becomes whether or
not Phlox should have been tasked with the attempt in the first place.

This dilemma is somewhat similar to that in the DS9 episode "The
Quickening". The main difference is that in that episode the disease was
introduced by the Dominion, while here the affliction is apparently a
natural evolution. I had no issue with Bashir curing a disease,
particularly an artifically introduced one, but "curing" evolution is a
much more nebulous endeavor.

That's ridiculous. Just because AIDs is a natural disease, does that mean
we don't try to cure it? Just because autism is genetic does that mean that
we don't try to cure it? If something is killing people, we try to stop it,
it doesn't matter what it is.

"while here the affliction is apparently a natural evolution. I had no
issue with Bashir curing a disease, particularly an artifically introduced
one, but "curing" evolution is a much more nebulous endeavor."

You can count me as one of the haters. Althoughy offensive on almost every
level, and in no way scientifically justifiable, it was one of the few
"easy to watch" episodes. Gotta give it that. Of course, you must ignore
the absolute disgusting level Archers morals went here and that he did just
defend the Nazi Holocaust, and all other attrocities and the history of
humanity.

I put this in the same camp as "Insurrection", easy on the eyes, but
morally disgusting. The difference with this one, is that it is not even
justified by the future prime directive, the species IS space-flight
capable. That is my BIGGEST problem with anyone (JAMMER) that defends this
episode. It doesn't even follow STAR TREK morals and rules. Archer had
every right to help these people.

Let me put this another way, if we assume the evolution is directed (which
it is not) than how do we know that evolution didn't direct this species to
have enough intellegence to have spaceflight and meet another species that
could cure this genetic disorder?

Whenever Nazis or the Holocaust are mentioned, a discussion has degenerated
into hyperbole.

The Prime Directive doesn't allow for Starfleet to aid (or interfere with
as the case may be) any culture that is capable of spaceflight--just the
ones that are capable of warp spaceflight.

If Archer gave the Valakians the cure the Menk would have remained in
serfdom. Archer's refusal to hand over the cure doesn't necessarily doom
the Valakians; they could after all find their own cure. They still have a
couple of centuries according to Phlox.

By not giving them the cure Archer left it up to nature, and the Valakians,
to decide the fate of their own world. By giving them the cure, Archer
would have been deciding the fate of their world for them. Phlox's
comaparison to Earth's past when Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals coexisted
sums up the situation nicely. If an alien culture had given the
neanderthals a leg up, what then?

I found this episode to be nicely meaty in terms of examining the kind of
issues a Trek prequel should, though I wouldn't rate it 4 stars, simply
because whenever I see yet another Trek Forehead Alien part of me just
mentally checks out.

A debate indeed is beyond hope when people start to call each other Nazis.
But this is not the case here. Nazis are mentioned because of the
alarmingly similar philosophy endorsed by this heinous abomination of an
episode.

Letting a race die because another race is destined to be superior to it
matches Nazi doctrine perfectly whether you like it or not. The fact that
it's done passively is of small importance. There is no country in which
standing by and letting someone die is not considered a crime. Let alone
letting millions die.
Do you really believe that pressing a button that will start WW3 is much
worse than knowingly not depressing it before it took effect?

The fact that Nazis are mentioned in this debate is not a testament to a
degenerative debate but instead to a degenerative episode.

All the episodes lacked is for Flox to start doing diabolical experiments
on the Valakians because they are destined to die anyway.
That, and for Archer to grow a small mustache.

@Benjamin, I am appaled at your assertion that it would be correct for
archer to grow a mustache, as a fan of trek it think it would be far more
appropriate that he grew a goatee.

oh yes as for the moral quandary, I find it difficult to overlook the
shoddy science, as it forms the basis of the argument for witholding the
cure. (incorrect science in sci-fi.... have never seen this before).
Strangly I wish i could agree with our disturbed captain and doctor, if for
no other reason than i'd enjoy to be put ill at ease with their conclusion,
however I cannot accapt their argument on either emotive grounds
(obviously, nor can I accept that their position is internally consistant.

A few other point that were raised in earlier posts:
TNG Ep Symbiosis, Picard justified withholding help on basis on prime
directive, even though the species was capable of space flight (just not
warp space flight), why this particular invention marks such an absolute
threshold I think needs further elaboration.

Ultimately i find that i can only accept The prime directive in any form as
a misnomer, its best (?) use i would see as one particular set of
guidelines of which action can be judgeded against (not the only
guidelines, i want to make that point clear, even if you find an ethical
theory appaling it can still be useful to see action through the lens of
that principle, if only to gain another perspective)

"The Prime Directive doesn't allow for Starfleet to aid (or interfere with
as the case may be) any culture that is capable of spaceflight--just the
ones that are capable of warp spaceflight."

Prime directive did not exist at this time.

"If Archer gave the Valakians the cure the Menk would have remained in
serfdom."

How in the hell do you know that? Episode gives us no reason to believe
that all, or even most of Valakians think the way Menk are treated is okay
and that they will trat them like this forever. Hell, the treated way
better than white people treated black people a hundred years ago. doe

"Archer's refusal to hand over the cure doesn't necessarily doom the
Valakians; they could after all find their own cure. They still have a
couple of centuries according to Phlox. "

Oh yeah, if I see a guy dying and he askes me for help, or get someone who
can help and I tell him to fuck off, I am totaly not partly reponsbile for
death. After all, someone else might come and help him.

"By not giving them the cure Archer left it up to nature, and the
Valakians, to decide the fate of their own world. By giving them the cure,
Archer would have been deciding the fate of their world for them."

BULLSHIT! The nature isn't a concious being, it didn't select Valakians to
die. By your logic, doctors shouldn't cure anyone ever, because the nature
will decide whether he lives or dies.

Decide? So what, you think they are not sure, whether they wannt to die or
not? You are saying this, like if they have any power over the situation.
They decided, they don't want to die, but they ar unable to help
themselves. Deciding their fate for them is EXACTLY what Phlox and Archer
did. Only way your insane logic of "deciding fate of their world" could
work, is they gave them the cure and Valakians were left to choose whether
to use it or not.

Phlox's comaparison to Earth's past when Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals
coexisted sums up the situation nicely. If an alien culture had given the
neanderthals a leg up, what then?

Nothing. It already happened in Star Trek and it did jackshit.

I'm sorry, but you are an idiot. This isn't a matter of opinion. this is
justifing letting thousands of people die for no reason.

Sigh...it is unwise and ultimately pointless to try and deride or condone
Phlox', Archer's or the writers' decisions by way of analogy. This "would
you help someone by the side of the road?" nonsense is sophomoric dribble.
The whole point of the Prime Directive (and its prequel ruminations here)
is that it is a policy which is meant to handle a moral situation which is
larger than what a human being can cope with. In our own world and time,
the implications of helping, curing or arming a foreign country is fuzzy
territory and it should be. By the time we're dealing with entire planets
and cultures on those planets, ordinary human compassion and empathy (and
morality) are insufficient. Analogy is the smallest form of human
reasoning. If the beings the Enterprise encountered weren't sentient, but
some sort of higher primate below that level of evolution, I don't think
there would be a moral outrage about allowing nature to take its course.
The point of moral debate comes in when it becomes decided that a certain
level of human progress must be achieved (Warp drive in the PD;s case) to
consider a species evolved enough to qualify for human-like sentience. Now,
that may be a bigoted position, and that may be an arbitrary line to draw,
and those very problems were wrestled with in the other series, but to
dismiss anyone's choice to let "thousands of people die for no reason" as
plainly immoral is small thinking. The fact that this episode demonstrates
large thinking in the spirit of Star Trek is exactly why this episode is so
far above most of the others in Enterprise as a series.

Ethics discussion aside: Enterprise is a "prequel series". The developers
have told us the series would enlighten us how it all came to be. That's no
truth from the Star Trek universe but from our own. It didn't develop
stand-alone, it was the basis of the series.

From this "how come" point of view it would have been far more interesting
if the writers decided to show us how that Prime Directive came to be. (It
might also have prevented this whole discussion...)

Let's say Archer acts as a human being and tries to help them, with
terrible results, thus making the space faring Earthlings rethink and
re-evaluate their evident and ethical imperative, leading to the
restriction called the "Prime Directive".

This weird episode is about the foreshadow of the prime directive (Archer
almost mentions the name literally) yet does not tell us why the Prime
Directive came into being.

It basically tells us: Archer sits on his hands "because", and millions
die. That's the Prime Directive. It could have been: Archer _does_ act and
as a result millions die. The prime directive comes into being.

You basically claim that scale is an excuse to abandon principles and that
analogies are unwise to use here. Yet you use an analogy yourself when you
say "if the beings the Enterprise encountered weren't sentient, but some
sort of higher primate below that level of evolution, I don't think there
would be a moral outrage about allowing nature to take its course" to
explain your own point of view.

Crucial in this story is that it's not humans interfering with others, but
others interfering with humans. The aliens came to the rest of the universe
in a bid for help, not the other way around.

It _has_ ethical implications for humans - on any scale, and certainly in
the Star Trek future - to turn down a plea for help. That is the reason why
some of the analogies here are perfectly valid. They're not about
interference, but about responding to a plea for help.

If you want to explain why such a directive came into being, it's only
logical to assume that an inexperienced captain of the human race makes an
understandable decision that turns out awfully wrong.

The series developers came up with the idea of the prime directive to
remind the viewers of what had happened in history shouldn't happen again.
South-American native people encountering Europeans, Native Americans
meeting the newcomers. And so on. Never again, so they taught the viewers

The devastating results of introducing _technology_ (and not medical
assistance) to people who would be endangered in their existence because
they wouldn't know how to handle it. It never applied to people who didn't
ask for help.

That's the weak point of this story. Coming back to your analogy: animals
don't ask for help. People who don't know that there are ready made
solutions out there don't ask for it either.

From the human's point of view it's not about pull, it's about push.
This is a pull situation: the aliens actively ask for help, and help was
refused based on "maybe, someday, and maybe this or that, and could well be
that one time in the future...."

The prime directive is not about scale and speculation, it's about caution
and learning from earlier mistakes. If someone defends the prime directive
with the words that it might be bigoted and arbitrary - then there sure is
something wrong with it. Bigotry certainly doesn't indicate "large
thinking". On the contrary.

Setting aside my already stated preference for abject non-interference from
the start that I've already stated (indefensible as it may be), looking at
this from the "Cry for Help" perspective as CeeBee very eloquently stated,
yes I would help. I hustle along and don't make eye contact with the
homeless people passively sitting in Jersey City but if one approaches I
always give them something even if it's just a smoke and a light.

Hell once I even helped an arthritic old man who could hardly move his
fingers, all disheveled with mickey mouse t-shirt and dirty stains all over
him with wild hair and a crazier food dusted beard, shouting, "Help, Help
me please!" while nicely dressed men and woman, looked down and scuttled
past or told him to, "Get the fuck away from me!" Poor guy couldn't pull
papers out of his front pocket that he needed for an appointment at a
nearby store. No one would even ask WHAT'S THE PROBLEM! "Whoa now, what's
the problem?" I said.

I get sad and a little angry at my fellow man remembering that poor old
dude. He'd been through enough, help that guy out. I guess I'm an old
softie at heart. So yeah, looking at it as a Cry for Help rather than a
Non-Interference issue... yeah I'd help. Well said CeeBee. Got me
thinking.

-

I DO disagree though with your comment on Elliot's analogy. The only thing
wrong with Elliot's analogy is that he made it. I can only conclude he
wasn't thinking since he had just taken a swipe at analogies. Cut out some
of the snark around the edges a minor instance of personal bias and a few
crudities that have no place in a debate and you get...

(para-phrasing) Elliot - "The point of the Prime Directive (and its prequel
ruminations here) is that it is a policy which is meant to handle a moral
situation which is larger than what a human being can cope with. In our
own world and time, the implications of helping, curing or arming a foreign
country is fuzzy territory and it should be. By the time we're dealing with
entire planets and cultures on those planets, ordinary human compassion and
empathy (and morality) are insufficient. The point of moral debate comes in
when it becomes decided that a certain level of human progress must be
achieved (Warp drive in the PD's case) to consider a species evolved enough
to qualify for human-like sentience."

Presto, now it can be examined from an interference/non-interference
standpoint - instead of the emotionalism of the "Cry for Help" scenario.
(ie, "Who CAN we interfere with/help?" Now examine the arbitrary line drawn
for helping (interfering) only with warp capable species. That's the crux,
that arbitrary line.

I have always had a problem with rules and I don't mean that in the
rebellious sort of way. I mean sorts of things like "Rules of Conduct for
Captains." Why is Starfleet promoting people to Captain that do not conduct
themselves properly? Starbuck from BSG is a perfect example of this. Great
pilot great tactical instincts but she does not conduct herself as
befitting an officer. She should never have been promoted to her positions.
She is a great pilot, let her fly. She has great tactical instincts, ask
her advice and listen when she offers it.

Why should a Starfleet Captain need a rule to tell him not to get involved
in things when instead Starfleet should be training Captains who can decide
for themselves if something is too big to get involved in or not and whose
decisions (whatever they may be) can be trusted to reflect only the best
ideals and principles of Starfleet?

First of all, I did not use an analogy. The analogous situations proposed
likening both parties to more familiar players: The Enrerprise crew (by
proxy the writers and PD ethos) to a single human being and the aliens to a
suffering stranger, for example. My point was not to reduce either party to
an analogous (in the arguer's eyes if course) player, but to point out the
arbitrary level of sentience placed upon the aliens because of their
anthropomorphised appearance and intelligence (for the record, I would
consider both species sentient).

Larger Thinking, as I define it here indicates the understanding that
morality is not absolute, that *reacting* is insufficient.

Yes, the aliens (forgive me, I'm on a phone and don't want to keep
scrolling for the spelling) asked for help; but what does that help imply?
If Archer gave them the cure, that would implicate Earth and this planet in
a vital relationship. That relationship would inevitably force humans to
interfere in all the ways we otherwise prohibit with the aliens' culture.
The technology gap would mean that either A) the humans would have to being
the alien culture up to its level [something the PD would eventually
condone with warp-capable species] or B) humans would remain the superior
partner in an unequal partnership, engendering its own problems.

Yes, it feels right to save lives and it's easy to claim that this
imperative supersedes all other considerations, but it is ultimately
irresponsible. Cultures must find their own way until they are capable of
entering a larger community of cultures--of course then the process must
start over. Ego evolves to family to tribe to nation to state to planet to
(federation) to...who knows?

@Elliott: "Analogy is the smallest form of human reasoning. If the beings
the Enterprise encountered weren't sentient, but some sort of higher
primate below that level of evolution, I don't think there would be a moral
outrage about allowing nature to take its course."

I read that as an analogy, ironically placed after a slap at analogies. If
I'm incorrect perhaps you need to educate me on how that's not an analogy.

Besides that minor quibble - and the other minor quibble that ego can be
maintained within the collective family/tribe/nation/state/planet etc - I
DO agree with you from an interference/non-interference stance. On
detecting a pre-warp space vessel with life-signs, I would have never
stopped to begin with. Here's a sentient species beginning their own voyage
into the unknown - who am I to interfere and rob them of the joys of
discovery and the tragedy of failure that my own species had to endure?

I believe my morals were referred to as "abhorrent" when making a similar
argument to yours :)

I might have to watch the first 10 minutes of this episode again to see if
they ever even approached the Enterprise or if it was Archer that assisted
them just thinking they looked like they needed help.

Pardon me, but how and why would saving a species force Starfleet into a
continuing relationship? If the species wanted more help, help that
Starfleet felt was inappropriate, they could always just say no.

Furthermore, what's so magical about the dividing line between warp and pre
warp? Why is it okay to help the Klingons after their mooon blew up but not
okay to prevent an entire species from wiping out?

And how about Bajor? While it technically had warp capability, it also was
a society that had been ravaged, and was only one planet, compared to an
entire Federation of over 100 planets. By your standards, it was wrong for
the Federation to engage in a rebuilding project. And it would be wrong to
help the Cardassians after being decimated by the Dominion war. Seems to me
in your world the only people its permissible to help are those who are
powerful enough they don't need it.

@Nathaniel: If the very existence of a species is predicated on the
assistance of another, I would call that a fundamental relationship. How
can Starfleet resurrect a species and then simply leave it be, as though it
had never interfered?

"If the species wanted more help, help that Starfleet felt was
inappropriate, they could always just say no."

So, if, for example, Phlox' cure caused a serious genetic defect in, say,
one third of the population--not enough to wipe out the species, but enough
to be a hardship--should Starfleet seek to correct the problem? Or should
they simply care for the ailing population, set up hospitals and embassies?
The idea that Starfleet can step in, no matter how well-intentioned, fix a
single problem and then walk away is a silly fantasy. Actions have
consequences, most of which cannot be easily predicted.

Warp drive is (currently) a fictional technology. It is arbitrary but it
represents, in the context of this fiction, a leap forward in our
evolution. It marks a fundamental shift in our ability to interact with the
larger universe. What that marker will actually be (if we make it that far)
in the future no one can say, but in this hypothetical future it's a
sensible option. If a species is ready to enter the larger cosmological
community (warp-capable), then the scenarios above (continued interference,
embassies, etc) is a natural next step even if there weren't an epidemic to
cure. The same goes for Bajor; one of the running plots of DS9 was about
Bajor's admittance into the Federation, and helping the Bajorans recover
from the Occupation wasn't a quick-fix.

I applaud helping others, but not blindly and not without being willing and
able to take full responsibility for the relationship one engenders by
doing so.

@Rosario : An analogy is like algebra combined with a simile :

A is a letter in the word Athena.

1 is a digit in the numeral 31.

A is like 1 in that it is a unit in a larger linguistic construction.

Thus an analogy is born. Now, one can make comparisons:

If without '1', '31' could not exist, then without 'A', 'Athena' could not
exist.

The problem is, you lose something fundamental in making the analogy:
'Athena' is a word, yes, but in our lexicon automatically has a huge number
of associations and deeper meanings. The same can be true of '31'--though
the associations are bound to be more abstract (for example on this site
"Section 31"). The point is, the analogy between the two constructs tells
you nothing about those deeper meanings, and the meanings themselves cannot
survive the comparison. How can I fit Athena being born of Zeus' head and
the jealousy of Hera and the prayers of ancient Greek soldiers into an
analogy with '31'?

The same thing occurs when you expand one human to an entire race--the
analogy fails.

My comment which you quoted is not reducing or expanding anything--I was
simply stating that the crux of the moral outrage had nothing to do with
compassion or evolution but with egocentricity to the human condition (homo
sapiens sapiens-centricity, I suppose). I could have said, plainly, "I
believe the moral outrage about nature taking its course stems from a
human-centric perspective, one that would never extend to lower animals,
despite evolution affecting them every bit as much as us." Thus, my
argument requires no analogy. It was simply wryer (or "snarkier" to borrow
from you) to phrase it the way I did, using a construction that resembles
an analogy.

"If Archer gave them the cure, that would implicate Earth and this planet
in a vital relationship. That relationship would inevitably force humans to
interfere in all the ways we otherwise prohibit with the aliens' culture."

If I cure a sick man of a disease, I am not obligated to interfere with
anything else in his life. If my cure causes problems, then yes -- I am
obligated to help fix the problem...but you can't necessarily make the leap
to total interference.

"So, if, for example, Phlox' cure caused a serious genetic defect in, say,
one third of the population--not enough to wipe out the species, but enough
to be a hardship--should Starfleet seek to correct the problem?...Actions
have consequences, most of which cannot be easily predicted."

Even granting your example, what you're saying here is that only being able
to cure a condition in two out of every three people in a society, and thus
continue the existence of both those people and the society, should give
Phlox serious pause about curing the disease at all. At its best, that
would only be an excuse to refuse to administer the cure for a set period
of time to see if a better option might be discovered.

"Cultures must find their own way until they are capable of entering a
larger community of cultures..."

The Valakians had previous contact with warp-faring cultures, and were able
to call for help. They're clearly already a part (albeit a fringe part) of
a larger community of worlds, which -- on your own assumptions -- moots any
argument against helping them just because they can't travel faster than
light.

Also, I think your analogy about analogies is the analogy that failed...

Sorry, left out two paragraphs as I was assembling a final draft. They are
below:

Yes, I know that your point is -- what if Phlox administers the cure, and
then tragedy strikes? It's a fair question. Here's another one: if you
don't have a thorough medical workup on a dying man, why give him a
medicine to which he might potentially be allergic? You have no way of
knowing what the consequences would be if you administer the dose. The
obvious answer, of course, and the one that scuttles your argument, is that
you know perfectly well what will happen if you don't.

I am not saying that always and everywhere, one should disregard potential
harms if there is an obvious harm to be avoided. In fact, as a general
rule, it's better to avoid interfering without sufficient knowledge. But
at a certain point, when the obvious harm is serious enough, risking the
potential harm is clearly a better course of action. Where that line
should be drawn is a subject for debate, but in this case, I'm fairly
certain you're on the wrong side of it.

Why is it acceptable for Phlox to let a peaceful, prosperous, albeit less
advanced race suffer a slow, lingering extinction because of a genetic
defect and the vague promise of another race evolving to fill the vacuum
but perfectly fine to cure the belligerent and hostile Klingons of a
foolish attempt to weaponize their race?

I side with those who think the medicine should have been distributed.

As others have pointed out, it's not just a question of whether or not to
interfere at all. Phlox was perfectly willing to help find a cure until he
discovers it is genetic. Then, all of the sudden, it becomes off-limits
because "Evolution" - which gets deified and basically presented as a being
who has orchestrated a Divine Plan - must not be "interfered with" and the
fact that the problem is genetic shows that Evolution, in His Infintite
Wisdom, has decided they must die for reasons far beyond the understanding
of mere mortals. We must obey the will of Evolution!

Ironically, many of those here arguing this viewpoint are completely
oblivious to its religious nature and believe they are being scientific.

Others have already pointed out how ludicrous and destructive such a
mentality would be if taken to its logical conclusion, but on a personal
level, I know someone with Down Syndrome. I for one am glad that doctors on
Earth don't stop trying to find cures for people like her because it would
be "unethical" to interfere with Evolution's will.

Overall I liked this episode, even though I am not sure how I feel about
the end. I tend to think that the cure should have been distributed. We
don't see giving medicine to less developed people as "interference", we
see it as our moral obligation. But I guess I can accept that both sides
have a point and that in those early stages of space exploration, humans
are not always sure what is right and what isn't.

Regardless of the philosophical and moral implications, a good episode.

No species evolves its way to extinction. If traits appear which prevent
the individual from living long enough to reproduce, they will not be
passed on.

All disease is natural, a doctor is fighting nature every time they cure
someone. It is absurd to say "This disease is natural, therefore I will not
cure it." The cure was not withheld due to the Prime Directive. It was
withheld because the Doctor decided to play God, decided that the Valakians
ought to die so that the Merk can thrive. We'd be offended by a "WHITES
ONLY" sign on a hospital, this is no different. If a doctor decided that
only white people deserved to be treated, and that he was going to let
those he deemed to be inferior die, he'd be condemned. This is no
different. Just because the doctor thought that the Merk could only thrive
if the Valakians died out doesn't make it true. Yes, this is an analogy,
but it is an apt one. The only reason there is complaint against analogies
is that it is inconvenient to have to go against such potent evidence.

It was only MUCH later that the Federation adopted a policy of no first
contact unless a society had warp drive, and even then, it's more of a
guideline - the Valakians contacted the Enterprise that's more than
sufficient to merit first contact, even under the more stringent standards
found by the TNG. The Federation doesn't involve itself with precontact
civilizations, but one contact is made, they aren't precontact
civilizations. Providing medical aid to a species that you have made
contact with when they request it isn't a violation of the Prime Directive.

However, I am puzzled as to how many have commented on the Menk. The Menk
have nothing to do with the fundamental question in this episode.

Let me give you an analogy of my own:

1. Mankind, as we speak, is dying. Regardless of what the future of the
universe may be, in a few billion years, according to our present
knowledge, as our sun expands into a red giant, life on Earth will die.

2. Imagine that one of these days mankind meets Q - good, old,
quasi-omnipotent Q. And that we ask him to deliver us from that terrible,
distant fate: "Please, Q, transport the Earth to a nice place where mankind
can live happily - if not ever after, then at least for a few hundred
billion years more!..."

3. Imagine that Q then answers: "I'm sorry, you sordid, puny civilization,
but this is one trouble you'll have to sort out for yourselves".

Would anyone accuse Q of committing "genocide"? Of course not.

Perhaps mankind will have escaped our solar system long before the Sun
expands to a red giant. Perhaps we will have become extinct long before
that. Q's decision not to interfere merely places responsability where it
should be: in our own hands.

This is fundamentally what we see in this episode - a civilization
threatened by future extinction, with still some time left to try and find
a solution to the problems it faces. As I said, the Menk have nothing to do
with the real issue: Phlox & Archer don't choose the Menk over the
Valakians. And how anyone can accuse Archer & Co. of "genocide" is
beyond me - if the Valakians do eventually die out, it will be due to their
inability to find a solution to their problems, not due to foreign
intervention.

Think of the technological advances of the past decades on Earth. Several
of these, some decades ago, allowed us for example to help people with
difficulty in conceiving to have babies of their own. And now, several
decades later, research suggests that on average, those who were conceived
thanks to such technologies have somewhat greater difficulty themselves in
conceiving than the average population. What will happen if/when those
people also receive technological help to conceive? How many generations
will it take before we have succeeding in "breeding" an otherwise barren
"sub-species" that can only conceive by technological means?

This interesting example illustrates the questions that Phlox and Archer
realize they're dealing with in this episode: altering the future of an
entire species on an unknown but potentially massive scale. Actions do have
consequences: this is not merely a question of being a Good Samaritan, even
if many here seem to think so. And naturally Archer declines to take that
responsability: it's not his - or indeed, Earth's - to take.

A civilisation is not a person, a species is not an individual, any more
than a corporation is a voter (no matter what current convoluted Supreme
Court decisions may declare). Agreeing with Archer @ Co. here in no way
suggests that "no one should ever help anyone". How ridiculous.

1. Valakians weren't asking Archer to resolve all their problems, just to
help them from dying out or give them technology to ge someone who could
help them.

2. I didn't know happenning to have better technology and be more advanced
in the field of science is like being all powerful omnipotent being.

3. If we would ask Q for help and he would say he'll give it a try and then
change his mind at the last minute because he has some insane
pseudoscientific theory, then yes, of course atleast some people would
accuse him of it.

4. Sun will explode one day, Valakians are dying right now.

"As I said, the Menk have nothing to do with the real issue: Phlox &
Archer don't choose the Menk over the Valakians."

Yes they do. That's Phlox's argument, his theory (and yes, it is just a
theory) is the whole reason he did it. He thinks that Menk might evolve
into something different but it won't happen because of Valakians so he
thinks evolution maybe somehow choosed them to die.

"And how anyone can accuse Archer & Co. of "genocide" is beyond me - if
the Valakians do eventually die out, it will be due to their inability to
find a solution to their problems, not due to foreign intervention."

When a doctor is perfectly capable of curing his patient but refuses it's
considered murder.

"
This interesting example illustrates the questions that Phlox and Archer
realize they're dealing with in this episode: altering the future of an
entire species on an unknown but potentially massive scale. Actions do have
consequences: this is not merely a question of being a Good Samaritan, even
if many here seem to think so. And naturally Archer declines to take that
responsability: it's not his - or indeed, Earth's - to take."

Yes we don't know what is going to happen if they give them the cure. But
there is no indication anything bad would happen. And we know a lot of bad
will happen if they don't.

"Think of the technological advances of the past decades on Earth. Several
of these, some decades ago, allowed us for example to help people with
difficulty in conceiving to have babies of their own. And now, several
decades later, research suggests that on average, those who were conceived
thanks to such technologies have somewhat greater difficulty themselves in
conceiving than the average population. What will happen if/when those
people also receive technological help to conceive? How many generations
will it take before we have succeeding in "breeding" an otherwise barren
"sub-species" that can only conceive by technological means?"

What an interesting question. Not sure that it fits in this topic so I
won't take it up but very interesting indeed.

Well, definitely a 4-star simply from how much discussion it's provoked!

Looking back though, I can only reiterate my complaint that the show never
properly demonstrated and explained **WHY** non-interference in the
development of pre-warp civilisations is so important. It was drummed into
us from the beginning of Trek as the Prime Directive and we were always
just kind of expected to accept this rule of wisdom. I always expected
Enterprise to explain it.

The nearest thing we got was this episode, which doesn't explain it at all,
and instead just adds fuel to the "why the FISH do we have this silly
non-interference rule?" fire.

Firstly, Star Trek is entertaining TV fantasy drama. But it's lousey
Science fiction. Apart from warp drive (which may actually,maybe,just
possibly work) the things ST does to true science is what normally happens
in an extreme porn film. This is because ST is mostly written by normal TV
scriptwriters with a bit of help from the odd real sci fi writer or real
scientist, who they mostly ignore for the sake of a good story. Now the
problem with Hollywood scriptwriters is they do like to act the great
philosopher and sci fi gives them lots of opportunity to do so. So, these
half wits get involved with huge moral questions like the ones in "Dear
Doctor" and then display their ignorance.

Now the great thing about TOS was the concept of the Prine directive and
Kirk's attitude towards it. For Kirk, the Prime Directive was basic
guidence, BUT reality, pragmatism and compassion ment that very often, he
rightly ignored it.
When TNG came along, the prime directive was absolutely binding and going
around it was almost a capital offence, federation PC. Reality, pragmatism
and compassion went out the window.
Mix this worship of the prime directive with some Eugenics and bad
evolutionary theory and you get the utter moral mess that is "Dear
Doctor".

Consider this. We are trying to save and conserve the Giant Panda, even
though it is an evolutionary dead end. Why? Compassion. We try to save
primative tribes in the Amazon basin. They are threatened by being in the
way of loggers and cattle farmers, as well as genetic susceptabilities to
the deseases of modern man. Why? Compassion.
The morals of Dear Doctor say all these things should be allowed to die,
that compassion should never count and should be ignored. People with no
compassion have scientific names. Sociopaths and Psychopaths.

Now as old Flox uses very bad concepts of evolution (there is no genetic
"judge" making judgements on who should live or die, there is certainly no
genetic imperative for one race to get out of the way of another.) and a
complete lack of compassion, what is he? Psychopath quoting bad science?
Joseph Goebbels?

I've been checking out the forums and youtube comments pages to see peoples
views on "Dear Doctor". It's about 20/1 negative with most saying the
considered this episode "offensive" and "fascist". I agree totally and I
think those who comment that Flox & Archer make the right decision
really need to look at their own moral compass. Or see a analyst to see if
they are psychopaths as apparantly there are quite a lot of them about.

If you want some good sci fi that deals with a "post scarcity society" like
the Federation, may I recommend the "Culture" novels by Iain M Banks. The
Culture is a vastly powerful advanced (Federation plus several thousand
years) utopia with citizens living idyllic lives due to the brilliance of
the technology. But it certainly has no prime directive. The prime
directive would make a Culture citizen puke. There is only right &
wrong, good or evil and the Culture WILL get involved, you just might not
notice as they are very subtle. And frankly, The Culture is a lot more
believable than the Federation.

@SvenTviking, very well stated. I am probably committing Star Trek heresy,
but I'm realizing that I think the prime directive is wrong. One of the
first times it *really* pissed me off was while watching the TNG episode
involving an alien culture who killed their people on their 60th birthday.
Or instances of women being sold into what basically amounts to slavery.

I watched this episode for the first time recently, and was angry and
disgusted that Archer and Phlox refused to save the population. I thought I
should cool off and think about it before I posted anything. I've read all
the comments, re-read the review, and thought about it some more. Yeah, my
first thoughts still hold: Archer and Phlox are hugely, unbelievably,
genocidally wrong. The word evil is not too strong. I hated the ending to
this episode, and will mentally block it out of my mind and pretend it
didn't happen. I can't believe this is Trek.

"Well, definitely a 4-star simply from how much discussion it's provoked!"
Well, it would be if the discussion weren't incredibly one-sided. I have
not yet seen an argument from the side in favour of genoci- err,
"non-interference" that wasn't poorly thought out and/or easily taken apart
and shown to be ridiculous. Not to mention the science behind the dilemma
is fundamentally flawed and the rest of the episode is rather plodding and
boring as well.

I suppose you don't count Jammer's own review as a "thought
out"/non-ridiculous argument in favour of this episode. While I don't agree
that much discussion and/or controversy = quality episode, I don't think
the fact that so many on this or other boards wag their morally superior
fingers at the episode indicates a particular flaw in the episode either.

For what it's worth, on this board, most of the anti-Archer/Phlox posts are
repetitions of the same argument; letting people die for "no reason" is
wrong, and it is *wronger* when multiplied to the level of an entire
species. There have been fewer but more diverse opinions which support this
episode's position including my own that is : however emotionally repugnant
the actions of non-interference may feel, the ability to reason at a level
above emotionalism is a necessary part of venturing out into space filled
with alien cultures.

Phlox: "We didn't come out here to play God", what a ridiculous thing to
say. One society helping another in a matter of compassion and suffering is
not playing God. WITHHOLDING help because of your ultimate high-minded
designs for the millennial descendants of the ant-like creatures on the
surface below IS PLAYING GOD.

Phlox: "I'm saying we let nature decide." this from a Denobulan? The same
Denobulans who gleefully indulge in all kinds of genetic engineering and
who have prospered as a result? The same Denobulans who found the wisdom to
say "to hell with nature" because they realized that nature doesn't give a
damn about your welfare so long as you manage to have kids? What a complete
subversion of Phlox's character. As well as a totally regressive attitude
in general.

One race needs to die, to get out of the way of the stronger, smarter, more
worthy race. Where have I heard that before?

Elliott, I have to respectfully disagree. Phlox had a professional,
ethical obligation to share the cure. As Kahryl points out, he's Playing
God by not assisting the people. I think that McCoy or Bashir would have
helped--Prime Directive or not. (I've just started watching Voyager--have
not seen enough of the hologram doctor yet to know how he might have
handled this kind of situation.) As a health care provider myself, I know
that our duty to our patients, frankly, holds us to a higher standard than
state laws may dictate. Regarding Archer, I think his noninvolvement was a
fluke of B&B's bad writing. His character is difficult to assess
throughout the series, as the writers changed him around--I guess just
trying anything to make the series more successful.

@lizzzi : I have no doubt that Bashir, McCoy, Crusher, Pulaski and Doc
would instinctually wish to offer the "cure," but that's also why they are
doctors and not captains. Captains have ethical responsibilities which
aren't as absolute as "do no harm." In this case, being a prequel series,
Starfleet via Archer proxy hasn't figured this out yet. Humanity is still
in a relatively contemporary (to us) stage of moral development, but is on
the verge of evolving to the Kirk-era. I thought it was a beautiful choice
to have Phlox, the alien who has been seasoned in interstellar affairs, be
the conduit through which this new perspective is planted. In this case,
the doctor/captain dynamic needed to be reversed.

Although it's true that I haven't seen this episode yet, I will say that I
am a very firm believer in the idea of the Prime Directive, because I like
to think that I know what it is for.

The Prime Directive exists as a means of preventing the Butterfly Effect
from coming back and biting you in the ass later on. You don't do things
which could potentially have massive consequences, when you have no way of
reliably predicting what those consequences are.

That means, that yes, you let Nature take its' course. If Phlox is taking
that stance here, it's not a case of him being a hypocrite as a Denobulan.
It's a case of him actually making the *correct* decision for once, with
the Denobulans having a history off usually making the wrong ones.
Remember the Eugenics Wars?

That is exactly the kind of mess, as well as things like the slaughter of
the Native Americans etc, that the Prime Directive is intended to prevent.
That also means, however, that lack of involvement is occasionally going to
*appear* to cause some attrocities of its' own, such as in the case here.
It is worth remembering, however, that non-interference is *not* the same
thing as active complicity.

Phlox and Archer refusing to get involved, simply resulted in the events
which would have happened if the Enterprise had never showed up at all.
Despite that resulting in the death of a race, it is still the best
decision; and the reason why, is because it is the *only* decision which
they can make, which has an entirely predictable outcome. The only way
that you can take complete responsibility for both your actions and their
consequences, is if you know precisely what said consequences are.

No, Petrus, you DON'T know exactly what will happen if you don't do
anything. In fact that result is just as unpredictable as one in which you
interfere. Deciding not to act, is in itself a decision and an action with
distinct results.

Also, the idea that the best decision is the one with the most "predictable
outcome" is ridiculous. How about destroying the aliena' atmosphere and
killing them all - you know EXACTLY what the result of that will be!

The arguments I'm reading here are frankly quite disturbing. It stems from
the prime directive itself and the evolution of it becoming a form of
dogmatism in and of itself.

The Prime Directive has good motivations, to be sure, but it's ended up
being a rather horrific and unenlightened philosophy. It ends up operating
on the Hitler argument. If there's a child in a burning building, should
you not save that child because he could potentially become the next
Hitler? No of course not. Because if you operate on fear of what is to
come, you'd never leave your house.

Janeway's mindless (at least on the part of the writers, I interpret it as
her being extremely depressed and hinting at her character in Endgame)
quote in Pathfinder that exploration is not worth losing lives. Not even
one. Which directly contradicts one of the greatest quotes in Star Trek:

Capt. Picard: I understand what you've done here, Q. But I think the lesson
could have been learned without the loss of 18 members of my crew.

Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home
and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with
treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the
timid.

Q is absolutely right. We can't be afraid that this society may end up
conquering the galaxy if we save it. Or that we might end up being colonial
if we go help people in need. Remember DS9. Starfleet helped the Bajoran
people because they were asked. Even though helping Bajor get back on their
feet would have been a violation of the Prime Directive, they did it
because it was the right thing to do.

Should the Federation ignore every distress call? Ignore every cry for
help? Simply because we don't know what's going to happen? That seems to
fly in the face of Roddenberrian ethics. What kind of society would we be
when we are hardened to pleas for help and don't act upon them? Why would
anyone want to join the Federation when they're dealing with such an amoral
philosophy (presumably because you don't get help unless you're in the
Federation already bloody fascist idiots).

The Hitler argument also takes on a rather religious tone to it. Not just
in the dogmatic "Do it because I say so" tone, but also because of the
belief in some cosmic plan. We don't know if helping these people will lead
to them doing horrible things, therefore we shouldn't help them, implies
that some god is out there planning all this. You notice this in Phlox and
Archer's arguments in this episode and also in this video with Riker's
arguments. Who'd have thought the Federation could be so religious huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mH-L6UCCAE

Which is also pretty anti-Roddenberry. And people accuse DS9 of being
pro-religion when they have the most blatant anti-faith message of them
all. Perhaps it's because it was subtle in the fall of Weyoun and didn't
beat you over the head with it like Who Watches the Watchers.

Ultimately the Prime Directive ends up being a dogmatic belief that seems
to measure the main characters' morality on whether they're willing to
break it to save people or not. The Prime Directive is not law handed down
from on high. It is a rule made up by humans (and all the other aliens in
the Federation). It's not scripture written on a stone tablet like the ten
commandments (unless that's really what Star Trek is, just another form of
dogmatism). It can and should be broken if it's the moral thing to do so.

"Wasn't sure whether to enter in this discussion since all the arguments
have already been raised. However, I simply couldn't leave it at "the
episode is proof that Trek itself is immoral".

I'm sorry, however did you reach that conclusion? Or perhaps I
misunderstood? The fact that so many Trek fans take offense at this episode
proofs to me that really this (and possibly the entire Enterprise show)
doesn't deserve the Trek label."

Unfortunately, no. Enterprise is a symptom of a larger problem with Trek.
At least with this Prime Directive bit. See my previous post. While the
TOS/TNG crews would break it to prevent civilizations from being wiped out,
TNG and VOY did just the opposite at times. Both Picard and Janeway would
be content to watch whole groups of people die just because they don't know
what might happen if they saved them. Again, the religious motivation of
"there's some cosmic plan that we can't possibly perceive and it's terribly
arrogant of us to think that we should have the right to come along and
interfere in that plan."

This is by far the worst episode of Trek ever produced. Praising genocide!
Fitting for Nazi Germany, I'd say.

P.S. As, yes, it does fit the Prime Directive. And yes, it means that the
Prime Directive is an evil thing, forbidding the strong to help the weak.
It real-time origin is probably the "colonial guilt", so common amongst
Western intellectuals.

Well I'm fairly certain the origin of the Prime Directive in universe is
the fear of becoming colonial. Of doing exactly what the Cardassians did
or becoming the Dominion. The Dominion actually make an interesting villain
in that they are very much so the anti-Federation: assimilating worlds by
conquering rather then by being an alliance for mutual cooperation.

The people who came up with the prime directive were probably very much
afraid that, if not them, future generations would exploit and conquer
other worlds. The problem, of course, is that it's far too restrictive. It
makes out that we shouldn't even respond to a distress call for fear that
we ourselves won't be able to control our behavior and take advantage of
the situation, exploiting the resources of the people in distress.

Although, I think the beginning of it was fine. The idea that we shouldn't
communicate with pre-warp civilizations or interfere with any other alien's
cultural development. Ok. I can see why they'd want a directive like that.
It makes sense that the Federation, as a tolerant society, would tolerate
alien cultures and moralities even if anti-thetical to their own. And it
also makes sense to not interfere with pre-warp civilizations, people who
are very easily conquered if given the chance.

However it ends up going farther then that, as this episode and many a
Voyager/TNG episode shows. It's taken to the conclusion that we should
never interfere in the internal affairs of these alien cultures even if the
aliens themselves are on the verge of extinction. And this is where the
Prime Directive gets into truly immoral territory. It seems to imply that
we should ignore any calls for help: as this episode seems to think. Which
is utterly and completely immoral. By any standard. Even Vulcan standards
with their also immoral: "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
argument. Although the two are quite different: one being ignoring a cry
for help and the other implying that it'd be ok to non-consensually harvest
organs from homeless people to save doctors who will save more people.

I'm really getting sick of all the high-horsed outrage over the Prime
Directive. I feel like I'm bearing witness to a Planned Parenthood protest.

The situation in this episode is analogous to preservationists who hunt and
kill predators in order to maintain ecological equilibrium in delicate
systems--killing in order to preserve the balance of life. Now, before
someone gets obtuse and accuses me of condoning euthanasia or genocide, let
me be clear that I acknowledge that possessing sentience changes the game.
We don't kill human beings in overpopulated regions, nor should we, of
course.

But...we *are* talking about entire species here, not members of our own
species. A species is not sentient, a species does not have a soul. We are
talking about 2 aliens who just happened across this situation about which
they know only what their instruments and gut tell them deciding to
radically alter the DNA of an entire species because they feel badly for
them. We're not even talking about prolonging individual lives--most of the
Valakians we encounter in this episode will live out normal life spans.
We're talking about Archer and co. deciding that future, yet-to-be born
generations of this race should have their DNA basically rewritten in order
to not *become* extinct. We humans have evolved the ability to propagate
our species beyond the limits of what "Nature" provided us (this is the
paradox at the heart of morality). And we know how many problems have
arisen as a result of that ability on Earth--overpopulation, global
warming, health crises. So, we've opened this Pandora's Box, and we have do
deal with it. In the Star Trek future, humans basically have dealt with it,
and it took centuries.

Unless humanity is going to permanently adopt the Valakians and the Menk,
they have no right to so fundamentally alter their civilisation. And I
doubt anyone here would find it moral for humanity to take charge of this
planet and direct its evolution by our own standards! THAT is arrogant
presumption.

What's great about this episode's take on the Prime Directive is precisely
the nuanced approach which can be missing from some stories (like, say,
"Prototype"). Archer and Phlox aren't just obeying a protocol, they are
using deductive reasoning and adopting a cosmological perspective,
beautifully showcasing humanity itself taking another evolutionary step
forward.

I'm reminded of the TNG episode "Transfigurations," where a species
resented and persecuted those members who were crossing an evolutionary
threshold. They were afraid of change because it was so unfamiliar as to
seem threatening. Morality is not an absolute, handed down from the gods
for all time; it must evolve with the rest of our consciousness. I'm so
utterly dismayed that the comments on this episode in the, what, 40th year
after Star Trek first aired display such enmity to this notion.

"The situation in this episode is analogous to preservationists who hunt
and kill predators in order to maintain ecological equilibrium in delicate
systems--killing in order to preserve the balance of life. Now, before
someone gets obtuse and accuses me of condoning euthanasia or genocide, let
me be clear that I acknowledge that possessing sentience changes the game.
We don't kill human beings in overpopulated regions, nor should we, of
course."

What the hell are you talking about? How does this episode have anything to
do with people killing predators? We're not talking about one species
killing another here. We're talking about a species dying of a genetic
disease. I think most of us who so despise this episode's (and other
episodes like it) take on the Prime Directive would agree that the
Federation should not get involved in two species waging war on each other
as a general rule, although it's probably best to consider on a case by
case basis.

"But...we *are* talking about entire species here, not members of our own
species. A species is not sentient, a species does not have a soul. We are
talking about 2 aliens who just happened across this situation about which
they know only what their instruments and gut tell them deciding to
radically alter the DNA of an entire species because they feel badly for
them. We're not even talking about prolonging individual lives--most of the
Valakians we encounter in this episode will live out normal life spans.
We're talking about Archer and co. deciding that future, yet-to-be born
generations of this race should have their DNA basically rewritten in order
to not *become* extinct."

The fact that this is a genetic disease that's wiping out these people
really doesn't change the fact that the disease is wiping out these people.
Do we decide to not cure all genetic diseases? Things like Autism, Cancer,
Parkinson's, and many others. The fact that it's genetic doesn't change the
fact that we try to stop it. Imagine if Cancer were such an epidemic that a
third of all humans now had cancer, basically what's going on in this
episode. Would you still believe that it's somehow a good idea to not
change the DNA to stop Cancer? What if literally everyone on the planet had
Cancer like the planet in the DS9 episode The Quickening (Bashir curing it
being a violation of this version of the Prime Directive, by the way and
only curing it by giving an immunization for the babies)? Should we just
let all of our species die because... what? Because we shouldn't tamper
with our DNA? Why? Because we don't know what the consequences will be? See
my above post then.

And going on your predator/prey analogy, does that mean that we should
never try to cure even non-genetic diseases? Because you're infected with
viruses or bacteria, the analogous predator. Does this mean that we should
just get rid of doctors all together because we're so arrogant that we're
interfering with the balance of nature?

"Unless humanity is going to permanently adopt the Valakians and the Menk,
they have no right to so fundamentally alter their civilisation. And I
doubt anyone here would find it moral for humanity to take charge of this
planet and direct its evolution by our own standards! THAT is arrogant
presumption."

We're not talking about these people radically changing a society. We're
talking about curing a genetic disease that's killing a third of the
population. I'm sure their culture is going to change since a third of
their people won't be dying anymore. But how is that a bad thing? Wouldn't
we all like to see an end to cancer and AIDS? If we were to end them our
culture would change sure, but so what? It would be for the better.

"yet-to-be born generations of this race should have their DNA basically
rewritten in order to not *become* extinct."

Yes. Exactly. Would you find it morally permissible to allow babies to be
born with a genetic disease that will certainly kill them when you have the
ability to keep them from being born with it? Again, see The Quickening
which comes to the exact opposite conclusion. Presumably made before the
Prime Directive was so perverted into thinking it was a bad thing to answer
a distress call.

"They were afraid of change because it was so unfamiliar as to seem
threatening. Morality is not an absolute, handed down from the gods for all
time; it must evolve with the rest of our consciousness. I'm so utterly
dismayed that the comments on this episode in the, what, 40th year after
Star Trek first aired display such enmity to this notion."

You know what image would be appropriate here?

i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg

Yeah that's about it. You really think that people arguing against this
immoral version of the Prime Directive are afraid of change? Are you
serious? That's what we call, in the debating world, a strawman. I don't
even know where you got this.

Look, if you're going to accept tolerance as a high moral, as the
Federation does (theoretically), then you're going to have to accept that
people disagree with you. Not because they're immoral. Not because they're
bad people. Not because they're afraid of change. Not because they have
some secret conspiracy to stay in power (although that has been known to
happen of course). Or any other strawman you can come up with. But because
they disagree with you.

Ultimately, though, if morality evolves towards the idea that we should
just straight up ignore calls for help, I really don't want to be a part of
this Federation. Which is why I chose to ignore the episodes that pretend
like the Prime Directive is like that.

Elliot, there's a reason why so many people hate this episode. And why so
many people consider it immoral. It comes down to something very very
basic.

"adopting a cosmological perspective"

Refer to what I said above. In other words, they're assuming that there's
some sort of grand cosmic plan and they'd be extremely arrogant to
interfere with this plan. As I said before, who knew the Federation could
be so dogmatically religious?

"Elliot, there's a reason why so many people hate this episode. And why so
many people consider it immoral. It comes down to something very very
basic."

Didn't finish my statement sorry. The reason people consider it immoral is
because it is. Think of a doctor's responsibility: to heal. And to heal
anyone who asks for help. Not just his allies. And not just people in his
alliance. Remember how outraged you were about the Federation not giving
the Founders the cure in The Dogs of War. Why were you outraged at that?
The Federation shouldn't give out help because of the Prime Directive
right? Hell, the Founders didn't even ask the Federation for help. It
wasn't a distress call, yet you were still mad about it. But why are you so
quick to say that it's a bad thing to help people who ask for help but not
a bad thing to help people who don't ask for help?

Also, how in the hell does a species evolve into extinction? That doesn't
even make any sense. Evolution happens by avoiding extinction. That's the
entire point. The individuals with traits that allow them to survive are
the ones that pass on their genes. Not the other way around.

"however emotionally repugnant the actions of non-interference may feel,
the ability to reason at a level above emotionalism is a necessary part of
venturing out into space filled with alien cultures."

Yes absolutely. However Phlox in this episode did not do this. He made
evolution out to be some sort of god and then pretended like we shouldn't
interfere with the cosmic plan of evolution. So not exactly reasoning at
its best. Unless you think magical thinking is reasonable then by all
means.

“What the hell are you talking about? How does this episode have anything
to do with people killing predators? We're not talking about one species
killing another here. We're talking about a species dying of a genetic
disease.”

And there's the obtuseness; the analogy has to do with the fact that the
episode implies that the evolutionary balance on this planet is shifting.
Remember Voyager's “Distant Origin”? The Saurians developed from
dinosaurs into a sentient race that managed to achieve spaceflight before
the asteroid hit and destroyed most of the higher lifeforms on Earth. If
not for that calamity, mammals would not have become the dominant kingdom
and we would not be having this discussion. Death and extinction are
absolutely a part of evolution.

“The fact that this is a genetic disease that's wiping out these people
really doesn't change the fact that the disease is wiping out these people.
Do we decide to not cure all genetic diseases? Things like Autism, Cancer,
Parkinson's, and many others. The fact that it's genetic doesn't change the
fact that we try to stop it.”

As I already pointed out, our ability to fight genetic diseases in
ourselves is something we developed naturally. To impose such a fundamental
change in the way the Ventakians relate to their environment and their own
biology is drastic. You make it seem like the fact that these people are
not warp-capable and humanity just encountered them for the first time is
not important, but it is. Can you imagine if the Federation just went
around to every planet fucking around with the gene pools in order to
“fix them” because we thought we knew what was best? Talk about hubris.

“What if literally everyone on the planet had Cancer like the planet in
the DS9 episode The Quickening (Bashir curing it being a violation of this
version of the Prime Directive, by the way and only curing it by giving an
immunization for the babies)?”

The Quickening was an artificial epidemic created by the Dominion. And,
importantly, it in no way affected that race's (I forgot its name)
relationship to its environment, it just made their lives miserable.

“And going on your predator/prey analogy, does that mean that we should
never try to cure even non-genetic diseases? Because you're infected with
viruses or bacteria, the analogous predator. Does this mean that we should
just get rid of doctors all together because we're so arrogant that we're
interfering with the balance of nature?”

Again, you are being way too broad. Try to cure non-genetic diseases in
whom? The whom is important.

“I'm sure their culture is going to change since a third of their people
won't be dying anymore. But how is that a bad thing? Wouldn't we all like
to see an end to cancer and AIDS? If we were to end them our culture would
change sure, but so what? It would be for the better.”

Who are you do make such a blanket declaration of “good”, “bad” and
“better”? Assuming that living is preferable to dying is damned
personal and not exactly scientific.

“Would you find it morally permissible to allow babies to be born with a
genetic disease that will certainly kill them when you have the ability to
keep them from being born with it?”

You need to provide context for these kinds of questions. It isn't a
clear-cut yes or no. That kind of reasoning is childish.

“Look, if you're going to accept tolerance as a high moral, as the
Federation does (theoretically), then you're going to have to accept that
people disagree with you.”

Tolerance? Who said anything about tolerance? That might be the buzz word
for 1990s liberals but it has little to do with Star Trek.

“Refer to what I said above. In other words, they're assuming that
there's some sort of grand cosmic plan and they'd be extremely arrogant to
interfere with this plan. As I said before, who knew the Federation could
be so dogmatically religious?”

Understanding that the Universe operates interdependently is not the same
as imbuing that interdependence with consciousness. I do not assume that
there is an intelligence at work “designing” the plan of the cosmos,
but I do understand that the Universe is a system and mucking around with
one component of that system without knowing how it works is dangerous.

“Why were you outraged at that? The Federation shouldn't give out help
because of the Prime Directive right?”

Oh, I don't know maybe because the Federation was RESPONSIBLE for the
Founders' disease in the first place, ironically inflicting their own
version of the Quickening on them.

“Also, how in the hell does a species evolve into extinction? That
doesn't even make any sense. Evolution happens by avoiding extinction.
That's the entire point. The individuals with traits that allow them to
survive are the ones that pass on their genes. Not the other way
around.”

I am quite familiar with SFDebris' feelings about Trek and this episode in
particular. I have in fact called out people on this site for plagiarising
his work in their comments—in fact, you posted on this page about the
juxtaposition of Janeway's quote from “Friendship One” (you mistakenly
reference it coming from “Pathfinder”) with Q's line from “Hide and
Q”--without acknowledging that it was Chuck who made that comparison in
the first place.

Allow me to direct you to my own source :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6AZyE_Fhgw

I find that the biggest problem here is that the majority of the people
discussing it have a very, very poor understanding of the Prime Directive.

Of course so do the Star Trek writers.

This episode has some problems as specifically related to the Prime
Directive, but since the Prime Directive does not yet exist, I have to
assume the missteps are intentional.

The series that I think treated the Prime Directive the most properly is
TNG.

Let's look at a few TNG edge cases.

1) Who Watches The Watchers - This is the quintessential episode for
explaining the reasoning behind the Prime Directive. Beings showing up with
magic powers would alter the course of history for a civilization. You
could end up with beings that have borrowed/stolen technology (like the
Pakleds) that don't even belong in space. Or you could end up being
worshiped (here as in VOYs False Profits). I think most people consider
this idea of the Prime Directive to be good. If you don't I'd have a hard
time understanding why you like Star Trek.

2) Homeward - The best debate about these kinds of things. Crusher even
points out that not interfering is a conscious decision to let them die if
we have the power to save. I don't know if I agree, but it's good stuff.
Either way, this episode pretty heavily paints that we leave non-warp
societies alone, even if we have the power to save them.

3) Pen Pals - "Wait. Oh, Data. Your whisper from the dark has now become a
plea. We cannot turn our backs." Same situation but now if the non warp
society asks for help, it's ok to help them it seems? Interesting....

So where does that leave us in relation to this episode. I have to assume
that the Menk ARE NOT an appropriate factor. As Elliott so eloquently
explains, ecosystems evolve too. The fact that the Menk exist should be
irrelevant. It was merely a way to demonstrate how our interference might
change this planet. But if the Menk did not exist our interference STILL
might change the planet. The fact that we can see the Menk shouldn't make a
difference if Picard was here. The Prime Directive would either claim that
we can help the Valakians (beings who actually set off on their own ships
in search of warp capable beings) or that we can't. Seeing a possible
future for this planet should not change the reading of the Prime Directive
(since there are billions of possibilities we can't see as well).

Of course Archer does not have the Prime Directive. So when Phlox shows him
the price interfering could have he chooses to not. Perhaps this one
decision is the start of the entire Prime Directive. And perhaps Starfleet
disagreed with the decision and added a clause where beings asking for help
could be helped. Maybe they actually go back and cure the Valakians later
on. But can Archer be faulted for having the ability to play god and back
off? Can he be faulted for cringing away from such power?

I think that's whats interesting. That regardless of this ONE edge case....
we DO need to have rules about playing God. That's all the Prime Directive
is about, not playing God.

"And there's the obtuseness; the analogy has to do with the fact that the
episode implies that the evolutionary balance on this planet is shifting.
Remember Voyager's “Distant Origin”? The Saurians developed from
dinosaurs into a sentient race that managed to achieve spaceflight before
the asteroid hit and destroyed most of the higher lifeforms on Earth. If
not for that calamity, mammals would not have become the dominant kingdom
and we would not be having this discussion. Death and extinction are
absolutely a part of evolution."

That's not evolution. An asteroid hitting the planet and wiping out massive
amounts of life has nothing to do with evolution. That's a random element
introduced into the ecosystem. Life forms don't evolve to protect
themselves from a random element that had never entered into their
ecosystem before.

"As I already pointed out, our ability to fight genetic diseases in
ourselves is something we developed naturally. To impose such a fundamental
change in the way the Ventakians relate to their environment and their own
biology is drastic. You make it seem like the fact that these people are
not warp-capable and humanity just encountered them for the first time is
not important, but it is. Can you imagine if the Federation just went
around to every planet fucking around with the gene pools in order to
“fix them” because we thought we knew what was best? Talk about
hubris."

No those aspects are not important. The important aspect here is that these
people asked the Enterprise for help. It was a distress call. They're
pre-warp, yes, but they clearly have the ability to ask for help. I would
agree that the Federation shouldn't go around and mess with the DNA of
various random civilizations. That isn't the point here.

This boils down to whether we should actually help people who ask for help.
Which we definitely should. I wouldn't want to be a part of a Federation
that believes that we should ignore distress calls.

"Who are you do make such a blanket declaration of “good”, “bad”
and “better”? Assuming that living is preferable to dying is damned
personal and not exactly scientific."

And this boils down to one's morality. Morality starts as a base of what
you believe to be important and then going from there. I'm saying that
living is the base of morality. Of course that's personal to myself.
Science doesn't have the ability to comment on morality. It is finding out
the way the world works, not making judgments on right and wrong. So in a
society where the base of morality is preserving lives (which the
Federation seems to be), then helping people who ask for help is a no
brainer.

"You need to provide context for these kinds of questions. It isn't a
clear-cut yes or no. That kind of reasoning is childish."

You're the one who was talking about altering future generations. This is a
genetic disease. We have the ability to stop this genetic disease. Thus
we'll be altering future generations. Thus babies.

"Tolerance? Who said anything about tolerance? That might be the buzz word
for 1990s liberals but it has little to do with Star Trek."

You were straw-manning your opponents as afraid of change. Straw-manning is
the anti-thesis of tolerance. And the Federation seems to subscribe to
tolerance as a high moral value considering they honor the laws and
moralities and customs of alien races they meet. Thus my talking about it.

"Oh, I don't know maybe because the Federation was RESPONSIBLE for the
Founders' disease in the first place, ironically inflicting their own
version of the Quickening on them."

Except the Federation wasn't responsible for it. Section 31 was a rogue
agency that didn't answer to the Federation or Starfleet. It's just as if a
non-Federation entity, say the Tal Shiar, were to do the same thing: infect
the Founders. Would the Federation be morally obligated to help then?

"The Quickening was an artificial epidemic created by the Dominion. And,
importantly, it in no way affected that race's (I forgot its name)
relationship to its environment, it just made their lives miserable."

Yes it was created by the Dominion. But isn't that a violation of the Prime
Directive to cure it? We're interfering in an internal affair are we not?

You also didn't answer my question about cancer. Should we through away all
our medical research on it just because it's genetic? After all, the
evolutionary balance on the planet is shifting (as if that excuses
inaction), what if we're supposed to all die out from cancer as if
evolution had some purpose behind it? Like you implied with the dinosaurs
being wiped out. What if the next intelligent species on this planet is
supposed to be birds and cancer is there to wipe us all out to make way for
the birds?

"Of course Archer does not have the Prime Directive. So when Phlox shows
him the price interfering could have he chooses to not. Perhaps this one
decision is the start of the entire Prime Directive. And perhaps Starfleet
disagreed with the decision and added a clause where beings asking for help
could be helped. Maybe they actually go back and cure the Valakians later
on. But can Archer be faulted for having the ability to play god and back
off? Can he be faulted for cringing away from such power?"

I like this interpretation. I like the idea that Archer goes to ask for his
superior's opinion and they decide that helping people who ask for help is
the moral thing to do. I can't say he could be faulted for it, but it's no
different from what doctors do every day. Work to cure people of diseases.
Doctors clearly play god in such a way, but that's their job. Now Archer
isn't a Doctor, but Phlox should absolutely know better. Especially with
how many medical degress he has.

"Understanding that the Universe operates interdependently is not the same
as imbuing that interdependence with consciousness. I do not assume that
there is an intelligence at work “designing” the plan of the cosmos,
but I do understand that the Universe is a system and mucking around with
one component of that system without knowing how it works is dangerous."

I wasn't talking about your belief here. I was talking about the episode's
belief. Take Riker's argument from that clip I was talking about. He argues
that there's some sort of cosmic plan. Which is echoed in this episode
where Phlox holds evolution up as having some sort of higher plan that we
shouldn't interfere with. The evolutionary balance is changing therefore we
must not interfere. That's pretty much what his argument was.

Sean, your entire argument boils down to: no matter what, we should always
help people who ask for it, especially if it involves saving lives.

"And this boils down to one's morality. Morality starts as a base of what
you believe to be important and then going from there. I'm saying that
living is the base of morality. Of course that's personal to myself."

Well, exactly. Why is your personal "base" of morality the one by which
Archer and Phlox should be judged? Because a smattering of other people
agree with you?

"helping people who ask for help is a no brainer."

It's preciously the no-brainer part I object to. Leading with one's heart
and not one's mind is unhealthy for advanced civilisations.

"Straw-manning is the anti-thesis of tolerance. "

Huh? A strawman is a device used in a fallacious argument to create the
appearance of an opposing view which can be easily thwarted, thus making
one's own argument artificially inflated. Tolerance is a state of emotional
discipline in which one endures or accepts something to which one objects
for some other end, perhaps peaceful coexistence. I'm honestly quite lost
on how you can call these two concepts antithetical; it's like saying an
orange is antithetical to basket-weaving.

"You also didn't answer my question about cancer. Should we through away
all our medical research on it just because it's genetic? After all, the
evolutionary balance on the planet is shifting (as if that excuses
inaction), what if we're supposed to all die out from cancer as if
evolution had some purpose behind it? Like you implied with the dinosaurs
being wiped out. What if the next intelligent species on this planet is
supposed to be birds and cancer is there to wipe us all out to make way for
the birds?"

Again, there is no "supposed to" here. If a species (like ours has) is
going to take ownership of its own genetic makeup, then it must be
responsible for the unintended consequences. I am not saying that a species
therefore should NOT take that step, but it is wrong (or at least
dangerous) for a *different* species to step in and take that step for
them.

As Robert pointed out, Archer realised he was not qualified to make such a
choice, no matter what his moral feelings told him. Indeed, the Prime
Directive (as it relates to pre-warp societies) is precisely the legal
framework necessary to make such decisions. Perhaps, the Valakians could be
saved à la Pen Pals, or perhaps not à la Prototype, but Archer, alone,
cannot make this call.

"Yes [the Quickening] was created by the Dominion. But isn't that a
violation of the Prime Directive to cure it? We're interfering in an
internal affair are we not?"

Yes it was a violation of the 2nd part of the Prime Directive (internal
affairs), not the 1st (pre-warp). And in so doing, Bashir made the
Federation even more of a target for the Dominion, didn't he?

"Except the Federation wasn't responsible for it. Section 31 was a rogue
agency that didn't answer to the Federation or Starfleet. It's just as if a
non-Federation entity, say the Tal Shiar, were to do the same thing: infect
the Founders. Would the Federation be morally obligated to help then?"

Eh, Section 31 is comprised of human beings and other members of the
Federation. The Federation is absolutely responsible for their actions,
every bit as much as the Maquis. The fact that they are rogue makes them
harder to control obviously, but that negates none of the responsibility.

"I can't say he could be faulted for it, but it's no different from what
doctors do every day."

Doctors do not decide the fate of an entire species every day. They work to
treat and cure individuals. That's entirely different.

"The evolutionary balance is changing therefore we must not interfere.
That's pretty much what his argument was."

Phlox's argument was weak, you are correct. He either should have been for
helping from the start or against it from the start if his morals were
consistent. In 10,000 years the Valakians could have died out and lizards
or rats evolved into a sentient species. The fact that the Menk were shoved
in his face should have been irrelevant. You either don't interfere because
of the consequences (there will CLEARLY be consequences) or you interfere
anyway. The fact that he saw the Menk and THEN decided interfering was bad
was waaaaaaay too playing god for my taste.

Archer on the other hand had his first taste of what interfering could mean
and it freaked him out and he backed off. That was a really human response,
I liked it. And it really does show a precursor to the Prime Directive in a
cool way. As a character study for Archer the episode is great. As
humanities first stumbles with "great power comes great responsibility"
it's great. It DEFINITELY loses a point for me not really getting where
Phlox was coming from.

Both interference and non-interference are going to have consequences. It's
the fact that the episode seems to want to imply that the Federation will
ultimately believe that the consequences of not answering distress calls is
better then the consequences of answering distress calls. Which obviously
has some rather disturbing implications.

But you are right. The episode is salvageable in terms of Archer's human
response of freaking out when confronted with the consequences and
interpreting it so that his superiors go back and help anyway. Although
this is the same Archer who, as T'Pol put it, "put the air your quadruped
breaths above the safety of your ship" so what do we know.

"Sean, your entire argument boils down to: no matter what, we should always
help people who ask for it, especially if it involves saving lives."

Yes. Yes it does. This is what the Federation believes throughout Star
Trek: TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY. Why it's controversial is frankly beyond me.
And quite disturbing.

"Well, exactly. Why is your personal "base" of morality the one by which
Archer and Phlox should be judged? Because a smattering of other people
agree with you?"

I'm arguing within the confines of what we know of the Star Trek universe
and the Federation's principles. Much like how this episode and Riker in
that clip end up with a weak religious motivation because they can't really
justify their actions. The preservation of lives seems to be the basis for
their own morality (except in some cases where Janeway was so far removed
from the Federation that she seemed to ignore Federation morality). Which I
think is a very good thing indeed.

Now obviously this was before the Federation was founded, but that doesn't
excuse how it goes against everything we know of Star Trek. Isn't it
standard procedure to answer distress calls and help people who need help?
How many times have we seen, in every show before this one (and even this
one), Starfleet ships and our main characters answering distress calls and
curing diseases or helping people who need help even if it is interfering
in internal affairs?

This is why people have a problem with this episode: precisely because it
is antithetical to Star Trek's own morality. Although, as I said, it is
slightly excusable by the fact that it's pre-Federation. But only
slightly.

"Yes it was a violation of the 2nd part of the Prime Directive (internal
affairs), not the 1st (pre-warp). And in so doing, Bashir made the
Federation even more of a target for the Dominion, didn't he?"

As far as I know (and I've seen DS9 about 3 times), that episode was never
brought up again except at the conference on Romulus in Inter Arma Enim
Silent Leges. So we don't know that his actions made them more of a target
for the Dominion.

But if this was a violation of the Prime Directive, why does nobody get on
his ass for what he did? Why does Sisko and his other commanding officers
allow him to treat this disease and even help him as Dax did? Because, as I
said, the Federation has always had, at its core, the preservation of life
in its morality. It's supposed to be a force for good in the universe, is
it not (or at least that's what we've always thought)? So helping people
who need help would be, to the Federation, a no brainer.

"Eh, Section 31 is comprised of human beings and other members of the
Federation. The Federation is absolutely responsible for their actions,
every bit as much as the Maquis. The fact that they are rogue makes them
harder to control obviously, but that negates none of the responsibility."

And the Romulans are made up of former Vulcans. And, of course, Vulcans are
one of the main members of the Federation after all. Is the Federation
responsible for their actions too? At what point do they become not rogue
and a separate entity? Is the Federation responsible for the rogue groups
of all the species in it?

I'm not saying that they're responsible for the Romulans or that they're
not responsible for the Maquis or Section 31. I'm just saying that it
doesn't matter who did what. The Federation has a moral obligation to help,
by its own morality.

I made an argument on one of the DS9 episodes that the show is one big
anti-war story and that the Federation not giving up the cure is losing who
they are to the point of their core principles: that of helping people who
need help. And that is part of their core principles. And the Founders
didn't even ask for the Federation's help.

"Doctors do not decide the fate of an entire species every day. They work
to treat and cure individuals. That's entirely different."

Actually, they do. An entire species is made up of individuals after all is
it not? As someone else asked, at what number of individuals does it then
become different to help? This episode has a disease that's killing a third
of the population. Is that too many? Why? Who are you to make that
judgement call?

Also, as I said before, people object to this episode on the basis of its
extremely weak argument that is formed on religious grounds. People who
watch Star Trek are often non-religious, so they don't really agree with
the idea that evolution is some sort of guiding force and that an
"evolutionary shift" is reason enough to not help people who ask for help.
Or, of course, Riker's idiotic religious cosmic plan (makes me lose pretty
much all respect for the man).

And the truth is, this disease isn't going to kill them overnight. Archer
specifically says that this goes against all of his principals but that he
didn't come out here to play God. It's a moment where he's humbled.

"ARCHER: I have reconsidered. I spent the whole night reconsidering, and
what I've decided goes against all my principles. Someday my people are
going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what
we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until somebody
tells me that they've drafted that directive I'm going to have to remind
myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God. "

I could even see him PERSONALLY recommending that Starfleet look this over.
He just doesn't feel he should be the one deciding these things. And as
I've said, if you look at Pen Pals (where Picard and co REALLY stretch the
Prime Directive), it seems that in the end Starfleet does fall on the side
of helping a distress call.

The problem is that this is a primarily framed as a Phlox episode and Phlox
is troubling here with his inconsistent viewpoint and the fact that he even
considers not telling the Captain about the cure! Definite issues, but I
come down on the side of mostly liking the episode.

I don't even begrudge Phlox his semi-religious approach to the universe
(religious characters can exist in Star Trek and do very well... see DS9),
but then he never should have wanted to help the Valakians to start with.

The genetic thing holds little water for me, as I've made clear you are
either for or against interfering in pre-warp societies that ask for help
or your not. The type of disease or the presence of the Menk make no
difference for me. And I do believe the Federation eventually decides to
help in these cases.

"The "Prime Directive" (General Order #1) is a Star Fleet regulation, not a
Federation regulation."

Sort of... we have been told it doesn't apply to civilians. That merely
means it's not a Federation LAW, that does not mean it's not Federation
policy. I doubt very much that Starfleet has ever refused to interfere and
the Federation said "Well we can, because we're not Starfleet" and sent a
civilian ship to deal with it. The fact that it's not a Federation law
merely means Federation citizens can't be arrested for breaking it... it
means very little in regards to what is or is not Federation policy.

"I wish you guys would read and comment on my review. "

Your point about Archer screwing up and having drastic consequences may be
interesting, but ENT does that in other places and I don't know if that
necessarily would make this episode better. Either way, it's no "Who
Watches The Watchers".

"ARCHER: I have reconsidered. I spent the whole night reconsidering, and
what I've decided goes against all my principles. Someday my people are
going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what
we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until somebody
tells me that they've drafted that directive I'm going to have to remind
myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God. "

Sorry. Even setting aside the obviously dubious morality of the episode,
that dialogue was really bad. It was incredibly hamfisted in an effort to
say that we're actually going to be a prequel show (even if they didn't
deliver on that promise until season 4). Scott Bakula played it as well as
he could have, but it was pretty badly written. It made me cringe the first
time I heard it.

"I could even see him PERSONALLY recommending that Starfleet look this
over. He just doesn't feel he should be the one deciding these things. And
as I've said, if you look at Pen Pals (where Picard and co REALLY stretch
the Prime Directive), it seems that in the end Starfleet does fall on the
side of helping a distress call."

And that's definitely a good thing. They should fall on the side of helping
a distress call. As I've been saying.

"The problem is that this is a primarily framed as a Phlox episode and
Phlox is troubling here with his inconsistent viewpoint and the fact that
he even considers not telling the Captain about the cure! Definite issues,
but I come down on the side of mostly liking the episode."

This is the episode that made me lose all respect for Phlox. Phlox is very
troubling to say the least. Not just in his inconsistent viewpoint, but
also in his seemingly jumping to the conclusion that he does for no reason
other then the script says so and science=religion.

"I don't even begrudge Phlox his semi-religious approach to the universe
(religious characters can exist in Star Trek and do very well... see DS9),
but then he never should have wanted to help the Valakians to start with."

Phlox is framed as a non-religious character from the start of the show. We
never see his religious motivations before this so it's odd that he ends up
believing in evolution as some sort of guiding force in the universe. Sure
it's fine if he is religious in this way, but it never showed up before and
never showed up again (presumably, I blocked out most of Enterprise and
Voyager). You're right, of course, that religious characters can work very
well especially on DS9: Kira, Winn, even season 7 Dukat.

I don't know of any instance in trek where the Prime Directive is implied
as a Federation policy.

Like I said, Archer not doing anything doesn't do anything to require a
Prime Directive. Archer's mention of it means nothing really because they
didn't interfere. Enterprise should be about screwing up and learning from
those mistakes and this was a prime opportunity. Something I think would
have hammered the point better. Certainly not "Who watches the Watchers"
for sure, but that episode already had a Prime Directive. It's really an
apple to oranges comparison. Picard and company got caught, Archer and
company were directly asked for help.

"PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an
evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.
ARCHER: I appreciate your perspective on all of this, but we're talking
about something that might happen. Might happen thousands of years from
now. They've asked for our help. I am not prepared to walk away based on a
theory.
PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific
principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for
these people is affecting your judgment."

I just watched Affliction/Divergence again and thought of this discussion
as another example. In keeping with Phlox's character as a doctor, or at
least what doctors are supposed to be, he is kidnapped and attempts to
create a cure for a Klingon virus. The Klingons asked him for help and he
helped them because that's what doctors do, even though it was an internal
matter. It was a virus created by the Klingons and (supposedly) according
to the Prime Directive they shouldn't get involved. But Phlox does. The
very same guy who, in this episode, tries to argue that they shouldn't cure
a disease of an alien species who asked them for help. Which makes me think
this episode was out of character writing for Phlox.

Yanks, he's being religious in that he's holding evolution up as such an
important principle that we should not interfere with.

Also, evolution is a theory. By the scientific definition, which Phlox
should know given that he has many a degree in medicine and is essentially
a scientist. And which Archer should know since he's (theoretically, though
that's in quite a lot of question given his actions) qualified to be out
here in the first place as commander. A theory is a unifying idea that
explains a large body of data. The theory is not a conclusion from any one
specific piece of data, but a whole lot of it. All the data points to one
specific reason. Phlox is acting as if he thinks theory means the common
vernacular use of theory in the 21st century.

And also, when Archer said "based on a theory," I'm pretty sure he was
talking about Phlox's Hitler argument. That being that we shouldn't
interfere because we don't know the consequences. The Hitler argument being
that we shouldn't save someone from a burning building because he might
become the next Hitler, you just don't know.

The Hitler argument, obviously, has a religious reasoning to it: that of
fate, destiny, and Riker's cosmic plan. Even time travel stories (in Star
Trek) don't believe in destiny. They make it a point that the time travel
itself can potentially change events and create a new timeline. Like the
2009 movie. Events are not set in stone. It's our actions that shape them.

Well, in Affliction/Divergence, there was no PD. And the PD as we know it
later in trek does not prohibit providing medical assistance. I'm not sure
the comparison is prudent to this discussion.

Archer's comment "based of a theory" is referring to evolution. Read the
transcript, that's what Phlox is selling. Phlox's next line is "Evolution
is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle". I don't
see how the "Hitler" argument is brought up anywhere in this episode.
Phlox's argument (whether you agree with it or not) is that the Menk will
someday evolved to the dominant species on the planet and Archer should not
interfere - not "if we allow these folks to dies we could be killing the
next Einstein or allowing the next Hitler to live”.

Well the comparison is that in the two-parter, he was willing to give help
to people who asked for help. In this one he wasn't. Basically. There is no
PD, it's true, so that's why I say this episode is only slightly excusable
for that. But only slightly.

So Phlox is saying that with absolute certainty (obviously not possible
with science, much less with an "evolutionary projection," which also seems
rather unlikely) that if this one species dies off then the other species
will become the dominant species on the planet?

First off, how can he possibly know that?

Second off, if this were to happen, why are the Menk more desirable to be
dominant then the other species that lives there? The two of them coexist
peacefully as it is with no hint of subservience or a slave class going on.
So does Phlox really prefer allowing an entire species to die over peaceful
coexistence? Some "doctor."

Third off, that's something that could potentially happen in the future.
We're here now. We have the ability to help now. If we don't help, what
Phlox said may happen or it may not. If we do help, what Phlox said may
happen or it may not. We have the ability to help prevent people from being
killed now. Worrying about what could potentially happen in the future
would prevent us from doing literally anything at all.

Also, from reading the transcript, I'm pretty sure Archer is referring to
Phlox saying that the Menk will become the dominant species on the planet
if they don't help, not evolution. Although Phlox is trying to conflate the
two acting as if evolution is so important that we shouldn't interfere. You
know, almost as if the universe has a divine plan that we mere mortals
would be far to arrogant to interfere with.

Another example of why this is out of character. In an episode not two
episodes later after this one: Rogue Planet, one self-aware species is
being hunted by another. And they ask for Archer's help. And Archer gives
it to them. Granted Archer is incompetent throughout all of these first two
seasons, but he does actually help people who need it. Making this episode
completely out of character for Star Trek and even this show. Although
that's not to say there haven't been elements like this in the past. Like
Janeway's saying that they shouldn't warn a civilization of impending doom
in Time and Again. But for the most part, this is the anti-thesis of Star
Trek's own morality.

Sean, you are refusing to take this episode on its own terms. It's not
about "helping people." Now, I will not claim that the writing of Jonathan
Archer's character is good. In fact, he's my least favourite captain,
including Sisko. But, the "message" here is not "don't help people."

I'm equally amused as frustrated by the frequent comments that when it
comes to other subjects, Trek is is in the wrong for over-simplifying;
Economics? Trek is too simple. Technology? Trek is too simple. Politics?
Trek is too simple. Oh ho, but MORALITY? Waaay to complicated there, Star
Trek. Don't you know that there is no moral ambiguity in making a decision
to help people? It's very simple. Black and white. That's why we like DS9.
The writers on that show knew that every problem has a clear-cut yes or no
answer. Why can't you be more like that Star Trek?

I wasn't aware we were talking about economics, technology, or politics.
Elliott, at this point I'm talking about Star Trek's confliction with
itself on this point. Star Trek's morality is one in which it's a no
brainer to answer distress calls and help people. This episode (and others
like it from TNG and VOY) try to make the opposite case.

And actually, it is about helping people. As I asked before, how many
people does it take before curing a disease is somehow different? Because
doctors treat people all the time. Indeed, many doctors look for cures for
diseases. In Star Trek, doctors work with multiple different species and
multiple different diseases from these species. At what number of people
does it change from simply helping people to whatever it is you're talking
about?

We like DS9 because it didn't have a clear cut answer to everything. That
was the point. It was very different from most Trek in that regard. Moral
ambiguity was everywhere in that show. However even Sisko would agree with
Starfleet morality: that answering distress calls and helping people who
ask for help was the right thing to do (and he even did so on numerous
occasions). Again, why simply helping people is controversial is beyond
me.

Again, another episode within this same show: Archer pleads with the
Organians in Observer Effect to help him. When it's his people that are
dying from a disease, the people that can but won't help are horrible
monsters. But when it's someone else, we didn't come out here to play god
and evolution demands that we don't help.

Nobody is saying that. Simply helping PRE WARP people is controversial. I
don't know that it should be, and if you've read my take on the issue I
think Archer made the wrong call.... but somewhere between "Dear Doctor"
and "Homeward" there probably is a line we should not cross. I believe the
as yet un-existing Prime Directive should not apply because these people
are literally launching ships into the heavens looking for saviors with
warp technology.

Everything is a slippery slope, it's a grey morality thing. Helping with
medicine is totally cool right, but would you give them phasers and shield
technology if they lived next door to the Borg? I mean... that's just as
likely to off them as a genetic disease...

The Prime Directive is about deciding where to draw lines, and what I liked
about this episode is that it said that Archer wasn't sure where to draw
them. That's a pretty standard reaction for the first human captain and it
colors his character in an interesting way. He's not perfect, he's not god.
Was this maybe the perfect episode to say that? No. But I thought it served
alright.

"Again, another episode within this same show: Archer pleads with the
Organians in Observer Effect to help him. When it's his people that are
dying from a disease, the people that can but won't help are horrible
monsters. But when it's someone else, we didn't come out here to play god
and evolution demands that we don't help."

That episode is so different from this it's not even funny. EVERY TIME the
Federation EVER came across a planet with a danger like this they tossed a
beacon to warn new comers. Why did the Organians not do that? Because they
wanted to keep the planet in it's lethal state for the sake of running
experiments.

They WERE interfering in a way already. Science tells us that simply
observing something can be interfering. Especially the WAY they were doing
it....

It'd be like if you knew the playground you jogged by every day was unsafe
and you didn't tell anybody the flaws you noticed because you wanted to see
how the children dealt with getting hurt.

"Star Trek's morality is one in which it's a no brainer to answer distress
calls and help people. This episode (and others like it from TNG and VOY)
try to make the opposite case."

See, that is itself a conflict; if it's a "no-brainer" as you say, then why
would so many episodes make the opposite case? Isn't it clearly NOT a
simple question of help or don't help?

"[H]ow many people does it take before curing a disease is somehow
different?"

As many as constitute an entire species. I think that's the point.

"[W]hy simply helping people is controversial is beyond me."

Please don't take this as arrogance, because it is not. But, the whole
premise of Star Trek is that humanity will evolve 'beyond' where it is now,
physically, technologically, socially, politically and ethically. The fact
that it is "beyond you" is a testament to this idea.

@Robert & Yanks :

Thanks for beating me to this point. The Organians in "Observer Effect"
were akin to Picard and co. in "Pen Pals." Also, we're talking about two
people dying due to external factors versus and entire race going extinct
due to internal factors. Apples and Oranges, as you said.

In this episode, the species is dying through no fault of their own. In
Observer Effect, Archer's people were dying of Archer's own stupidity:
exposing themselves to an alien virus. What Archer in Observer Effect seems
to say is that allowing an entire species to die through no fault of their
own because evolution demands it is ok, nay even a good thing, while
allowed a few people to die from their own stupidity is not having
compassion. I'm sure the species in this episode thinks you're real
compassionate Archer.

"See, that is itself a conflict; if it's a "no-brainer" as you say, then
why would so many episodes make the opposite case? Isn't it clearly NOT a
simple question of help or don't help?"

There are some episodes that try to make the case that helping people is
bad. But most of the time the reasons for not helping come down to either:
"Because evolution demands that we not interfere" or "shut up, I'm the
captain."

Most of the episodes that involve dying species or distress calls have the
main characters helping those who ask for help. The ones that don't are the
exception, not the rule. And tend to have really bad justifications, like
the ones I said above.

It wasn't stupidity (for once), it was naïvety. You know there is a
difference between dying and going extinct right?

You are of course free to have your own opinion about what is right and
wrong, I was simply pointing out that Star Trek, the franchise, has never
plainly laid out a morality as you depicted it. Those "contradictory"
episodes (I don't find them contradictory, by the way, they are an
elaboration on Trek morality) are not outliers; the Prime Directive is a
major component of Trek lore and thus form an integral part of the
universe's ethical model.

I wasn't saying the Prime Directive isn't a major component of Trek lore.
It is. And it's a good one. I'm saying that the episodes where, like this
one or Time and Again, the episode tries to say that standing by and
letting an entire species die for no reason is a good thing as an
interpretation of the prime directive are the outliers. Why do you think
everyone absolutely hates this episode? Because it's not normal for Star
Trek to act like this.

Most of the time in Star Trek, the prime directive is not interpreted as
"stand by and let people die after they ask for your help, even if you can
save them." We've seen time and time again where Starfleet has helped save
lives when asked.

Actually, it was stupidity. You've got a ship that's designed for
exploration and scanning planets. So they should have known, before going
down to it, that there was a virus down there that was deadly to humans.
Unless they just go down to every planet without scanning it first, in
which case they should have been dead long before that episode.

"The episode is NOT saying that an entire species ought to die, it's saying
that one human captain and one Denobulan doctor don't have the right to
make that determination for an entire species."

Actually, it is saying that. They could have - and should have - taken this
issue to Starfleet or the Vulcan Council of Ethics or whatever, but no. The
two of them decided, nope, we'll just let all the millions of you die.

If the Cardassians had withheld vital medicine and technology because of
their parinoia and competitiveness, that would be a brutal, but
understandable decision. It would at least be honestly selfish.

But the SMUGNESS of Phlox and Archer is what makes this so reprehensible,
no, evil. They're ALLOWING these poor inferior life forms to die, for the
GOOD of their world. And oh, Enterprise will just have to bear the PAIN
that comes with adherance to such a noble, noble code. They're doing them a
favor that they can't understand yet, but one day, they'll be wise enough
to.

As I've long suspected, it is precisely that ostensible smugness that
people object to in not only this episode, but every Trek episode dealing
with evolved sensibilities. People just don't like to be told they aren't
good enough. 9 times out of 10, when one person accuses another of
smugness, it's a confession that the former suffers from an inferiority
complex. What's to say there aren't a hundred other planets with suffering
populations or millions on the verge of death? Are we to fault Phlox and
Archer for not actively seeking them out and "saving" them all?

"They're ALLOWING these poor inferior life forms to die, for the GOOD of
their world."

There is no guarantee that those people will die, and they never claimed it
was for the "good" of anyone, simply that the decision was not theirs to
make.

-lesigh- No. Of course not. Peer pressure is not a good basis for believing
something. If you had finished reading what I wrote, I said that everyone
hates this episode precisely because it is so radically different from
normal Trek morality. Indeed, that was my main point in that post.

"The episode is NOT saying that an entire species ought to die, it's saying
that one human captain and one Denobulan doctor don't have the right to
make that determination for an entire species."

And that's not a bad thing to say. And it's completely fine. If the episode
had ended with Phlox and Archer going back to Starfleet or to the Vulcans
or to the Interspecies Medical Exchange or whatever other medical authority
and asking them to decide, it would have been salvageable. But that is not
what the episode is trying to say. The episode is trying to say that we
shouldn't give these people the cure because... evolution and destiny and
we can't alter the DNA. Any excuse to justify not curing a disease, the
anti-thesis of what being a doctor is all about. It is very much so saying
that an entire species should die because evolution.

"You're being completely myopic about the issue. To your point of view, the
debate begins and ends at the loss of life. What a terribly narrow
vision."

Yes, that's correct. And what else would a debate on morality begin and end
with? What's the point of having morality or having laws in place if we
aren't ultimately protecting people's lives? And what does it say about a
society that doesn't think lives are where the debate should begin and
end?

This particular episode has the rather important point that these people
asked for help.

The Federation believes in the preservation of life as its highest moral.
That is why they do answer distress calls and cure diseases when asked.

"If you had finished reading what I wrote, I said that everyone hates this
episode precisely because it is so radically different from normal Trek
morality."

You are trying to bolster your argument because of popular consensus
("everyone hates..."). Rights are not determined by majority opinion, but
on judicial interpretation of principles.

"Any excuse to justify not curing a disease, the anti-thesis of what being
a doctor is all about. "

I don't recall Archer or Phlox "looking" for a means to avoid altering
these people's DNA. It was when confronted by a previously un-foreseen
context that they felt compelled to re-evaluate their kneejerk moral
response.

"And what else would a debate on morality begin and end with? What's the
point of having morality or having laws in place if we aren't ultimately
protecting people's lives?"

That's an interesting question. I don't have an answer for you, but the
point is in fact that assuming the purpose of laws, etc. is ultimately the
preservation of life is, well, an assumption. What do you base this
assumption on?

"The Federation believes in the preservation of life as its highest moral.
That is why they do answer distress calls and cure diseases when asked."

The Federation (and as Yanks pointed out, it does not yet exist in this
timeline) believes in *seeking out* new life, not corrupting, destroying or
tampering with it. The goal of Starfleet's exploration was to understand
the Universe in which we live, not impose our sense of right and wrong upon
it.

"You are trying to bolster your argument because of popular consensus
("everyone hates..."). Rights are not determined by majority opinion, but
on judicial interpretation of principles."

No I'm really not. You're focusing on the one little part of the sentence,
the "everyone hates" part and ignoring the actual point that I've been
trying to make. The "everyone hates" part is an acknowledgement that most
of the comments in this thread and about this episode in general around the
internet that I've seen are against this particular episode. It's not an
attempt to bolster the argument with peer pressure. As I just said, peer
pressure is not a reason to adopt an argument.

"That's an interesting question. I don't have an answer for you, but the
point is in fact that assuming the purpose of laws, etc. is ultimately the
preservation of life is, well, an assumption. What do you base this
assumption on?"

It is the purpose of law. At least our own law, now in the 21st century.
And what little of the law we see in the Federation.

Basing morality on the preservation of life is the ultimate assumption you
can make. That is, whatever you base your morality on, that is where the
argument stops. Because there is nothing higher to appeal to, morality
being something that we ourselves have made up for ourselves. And as we
made it up for ourselves, we tend to value living as the base for
morality.

"The Federation (and as Yanks pointed out, it does not yet exist in this
timeline) believes in *seeking out* new life, not corrupting, destroying or
tampering with it. The goal of Starfleet's exploration was to understand
the Universe in which we live, not impose our sense of right and wrong upon
it."

And that is a laudable goal. And yet they still, as I've said many times
before, answer distress calls and cure diseases many times throughout Star
Trek history. Because helping people who ask for help is not seen as
tampering with life or imposing their own senes of right and wrong upon
others. It is seen as the right thing to do.

I understand that the Federation doesn't exist yet in Enterprise, but we're
talking about an episode that was supposed to be the forerunner to the
Federation's prime directive. And yet the prime directive isn't used in the
way this episode suggests.

"Basing morality on the preservation of life is the ultimate assumption you
can make. That is, whatever you base your morality on, that is where the
argument stops. Because there is nothing higher to appeal to, morality
being something that we ourselves have made up for ourselves. And as we
made it up for ourselves, we tend to value living as the base for
morality."

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it is not a fact. Many people,
religious and otherwise, see physical life as being something less than the
highest order of existence to which we can appeal. Your reasoning and
philosophy is very...18th century. Not that this is a negative criticism,
but it is rather confined.

" Because helping people who ask for help is not seen as tampering with
life or imposing their own [sense] of right and wrong upon others. It is
seen as the right thing to do."

Except when it isn't. It most certainly is not ALWAYS shown as being the
right thing, otherwise debates over the Prime Directive would never occur.

"Except when it isn't. It most certainly is not ALWAYS shown as being the
right thing"

You're right. It's not seen that way in Voyager and Enterprise. Because
Voyager and Enterprise are quite bad. Although that's kind of a given. In
other episodes of TOS or TNG when the Prime Directive demands that they not
help people who need help after being asked, Picard and Kirk end up
breaking it repeatedly anyway. It's almost as if the Prime Directive were
introduced as a test of morality in the series, showing us how the
characters are moral for breaking it. That's my guess anyway.

"Many people, religious and otherwise, see physical life as being something
less than the highest order of existence to which we can appeal."

And what do people use as the base for their morality now? A "soul"? An
"afterlife"? What else would you have me use?

You really have to let go of this "asked them for help" trope. I don't
recall an episode of TOS or TNG where the crew was asked to ALTER A
SPECIES' EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS on a genetic level before.

"And what do people use as the base for their morality now?"

Morality is based on cultural consensus, not universally held absolutes.

@Flying Tiger Comics: I agree with your general opinion of this show (and
love the new adjective you've invented), but really, this is one of the
series' only great episodes. The hate on this page really makes me sorry
for them--that one of their few successes should be so despised.

Why should it matter that it was an "evolutionary process"? There's nothing
sacred about evolution, it's just part of how biology happens. Why are the
victims of biological phenomena less worthy of assistance than, say, the
victims of astrophysical phenomena?

Yeah, asking for help is the most important part. Besides, you know, the
fact that an entire species was dying.

So you think that evolution has some sort of goal behind it? Because I
thought that idea was discredited years ago. Decades ago even. There is no
end goal for evolution. There is no magical process. It is not a sacred
thing that needs to be protected.

Morality is based on cultural consensus, not universally held absolutes,
obviously. But you said: "Many people, religious and otherwise, see
physical life as being something less than the highest order of existence
to which we can appeal."

Which implied that you think that there are moral absolutes. Hence my
question, what is the highest order of existence to which we can appeal in
your opinion? The soul? An afterlife? God? I thought we weren't religious
here. Although dogmatic adherence to the PD is a Star Trek staple.

It is so despised because it is not a success. It's an attempt to make a PD
story that ironically ended up showing everyone just how downright immoral
the PD has always been.

@Flying Tiger Comics

SF Debris's interpretation is that the Valakians end up being the Breen
after being cured by the Romoulans. They then join the war against the
Federation as revenge against Archer and Phlox's refusal to give them the
cure. Meanwhile the Menk became the Pakleds after becoming slaves to the
Ferengi.
sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/e113.php

@Sean : Our conversations are repeatedly halted by this obsession you have
with the species "dying"--I remind you, the species was going extinct
slowly. The fact that individual members of the species were dying is a
non-issue, since, you know, all living things eventually die. You and
others like you think you've cornered the high-ground on morality because
you support "life" over anything else, much like the ignorami closing
Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas and elsewhere.

In one particular moment in time, making a choice different from Archer's
and choosing to reverse the extinction process, would have indeed ensured
that there was a greater number of living beings in the Universe for a
time. What if Archer and co. had encountered this phenomenon a hundred or
so years later down the line? What if the Valakians were not quite extinct
but close to it and the Menk were still an underclass, but more developed.
Hell, what if the Menk had taken it upon themselves to care for the ailing
Valakians? The Menk would be far more numerous than the Valakians, learning
and applying the architecture of civilisation, well on their way to being a
space-fairing race. OR maybe they would be as undeveloped as shown here,
but still a happy, kind people hospicing a dying race which once dominated
them. Once the process became inevitable, would Archer still be wrong for
withholding the cure? Should he say, "No, fuck it. I'm going to step in an
totally upset this balance of life and death, artificially prolong this
species' existence and destroy the relationship which has developed between
these people, because 'life'"?

For the record, I do not think evolution has some sort of goal to it, but
ecosystems always strive for balance. If a species is dying out, it's for a
reason (no not a 'someone/thing wants them to die' reason, I mean a cause,
and A which lead to the B of their extinction). Humans have artificially
increased their lifespan and the result is a planet which is choking on
human impact. We have driven dozens of species to extinction by extending
our lives. Am I saying that we should not practise medicine or extend human
life? No. Those are the two edges of the sword which result from our
special genius. We reap the benefits of science, but we must also clean up
the mess and take responsibility for the side-effects. As I said before,
taking responsibility for another world and its entire ecological system,
not to mention the socio-political webs of two sentient species which
intertwine with that system, is not even possible for the Enterprise or
even all of humanity to undertake.

"'Many people, religious and otherwise, see physical life as being
something less than the highest order of existence to which we can
appeal.'

Which implied that you think that there are moral absolutes."

What? I'm honestly totally lost on this calculation. How did you get from
"there are strata to existence above physical life" to "there are moral
absolutes"?

As to your question, "what is the highest order of existence to which we
can appeal in your opinion?", for me the answer happens to be art, but I
don't expect others to share in that opinion. All I ask is that we don't
enter moral debates with preconceived assumptions like 'life > death, no
matter what.' I ask for the cool calm of open minds and critical thinking,
not sanctimonious tyranny of closed morality.

I'm pretty much done with this debate at this point. But I did just want to
say before I left that I find it ironic that Elliott, you complain about
DS9 all the time. Something like In the Pale Moonlight in which Sisko finds
himself an accessory to murder and does other nasty things. You complain
about DS9 all the time, but you bend over backwards in mental gymnastics
not normally found outside of creationists to justify something far worse
then DS9 has ever done: allowing an entire species to die for no reason.
DS9 never did that. Indeed, when there was an entire species dying for what
Section 31 thought to be a good reason, the show actively condemned that.
Also when an entire species was dying from the Quickening for no reason,
the show actively condemned that.

Sean, I am willing to do a little critical thinking in favour of an episode
of a show which went out of its way to do the same, when it usually
contented itself to be brainless, pandering schlock. The fact that you have
yet to move an inch away from the dichotomous "allowing an entire species
to die for no reason" refrain is testament to the theory that DS9 was and
is hip to a contemporary "feeling" of moral disambiguation, but truly
lacked the conviction to test a critical moral mind. That's the real irony,
that a show like Enterprise, which is buried in simplistic storytelling,
should surpass DS9 in the very subject that show's proponents tout over and
over.

However, I too am done with this debate. I have utterly failed to convince
you to even frame the argument over this episode in objective terms, let
alone compare those objects in a proper debate, so there seems to be little
reason to go further.

My personal take on this show is that while I disagree with the captain's
decision (as well as the original decision of the doctor), I understand
their decisions in the context of the episode (and the general narrative of
the series).

Actually, let me revise my statement: it's not up to me to agree or
disagree with the decisions made in this episode. For me, the point of the
episode is to show what a difficult predicament Archer faces. There are no
easy answers when Enterprise can have such a massive impact on a planet's
history. They (Archer and the doctor) cannot fathom the consequences of
such a large scale influence. That doesn't mean that either Archer or the
doctor is correct in their appraisal of the situation. But, one could see
why Archer is unsure of what action to take. This conflict appears central
to the series. How should the crew members of the Enterprise behave when
they lack the precedent to base their judgments on prior precedents?

Oops, in regards to my final sentence I meant: How should the crew members
of the Enterprise act when their situations are so novel that they lack
adequate precedents with which to base their judgments?

Actually upon reading some of the comments here, I agree with the person
who says that Archer and Phlox should have taken the decision to the
highest authorities or some larger group.

Nonetheless, in my above comments I only meant to sympathize with the
perspective that is offered here (in this episode): that changing an entire
planet's history is complicated. But, it could have been handled better.

I think moat of us would tend to lean towards helping them anyway. But, to
focus on our own perspectives only would be to miss the perspective offered
here - in this episode (a perspective that is not without insight).

Didn't read every one of the 200+ comments completely, so someone may have
brought this up already but...

One group (pro-Phlox decision) is saying that providing a cure is morally
PROHIBITED.

The other group is saying that providing a cure is morally COMPULSORY.

Both groups deny the moral right of individual choice to dispose of one's
resources as one sees fit. Some might decide to provide a cure, others
might not. There could be any number of factors that enter into either
decision. But the decision is entirely up to the PROVIDER of help. And
either decision is morally valid. No one is obligated to help, nor should
they be prohibited from helping.

It'd be more like if Pandas were going extinct and since the decline in the
Panda population began Koalas had started to thrive.

Now you're not choosing Pandas over no Pandas, you're choosing Pandas over
allowing the "natural order" to progress.

Now keep in mind that many things we're trying to save from extinction are
things we CAUSED to be in trouble... so there's that.

But yes, I'm firmly of the camp that Archer alone should not be making this
decision. I don't want to weigh in on what I think or don't think should
happen, but I think this decision is bigger than him.

Robert said "It'd be more like if Pandas were going extinct and since the
decline in the Panda population began Koalas had started to thrive."

In the episode, the Koalas and the Pandas are living fine together. The
Pandas are dying. If the Pandas die, the Koalas will undoubtedly increase
in population size. But this hypothetical "thriving of the Koalas" has no
bearing on the issue; the Pandas and the Koalas have always lived fine
together. Helping the Pandas maintains the status quo - Koalas and Pandas
together - affects nothing.

According to the rules of this episode, you can have:

a) help pandas so pandas and koalas live together
b) do nothing so pandas die and koalas live

So why not choose A? The cure doesnt help pandas at the expense of koalas.

The controversial message of this episode aside, I think we can all agree
that DEAR DOCTOR was beautifully directed, scored and featured one of the
best depictions of an alien society. Language barriers were intelligently
handled, and the alien culture was handled quite gracefully. Note that the
alien planet only consists of 2 sets. This minimalist style works much
better than elaborate world building, which runs the risk of hokiness.

Pretty late to this debate (which I'm surprised has gone on so long, in
fact), but here's my two cents:

First off, emotive value aside, what Archer and Phlox agreed to do (or not
do) does not amount to genocide. The long-established definition from
Raphael Lamkin of genocide is "a coordinated plan of different actions
aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national
groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves". Whatever else
it amounts to, the decision in this episode cannot rationally be described
as "a coordinated plan of different actions" or having "the aim of
annihilating" the species. They left them medicine to try and help, after
all, which contradicts that. What it does amount to is omitting to act, and
that invokes a different parallel.

The closest parallel, and perhaps the root for some justified criticism, is
that it is akin to the international community response to Rwanda or other
such atrocities. Even so, this is not strictly comparable. There isn't a
direct campaign of violence against the Valakians; the source of their
illness (and eventual presumed demise) is faulty genetics. There is no
third party involvement. As such, the question becomes whether Enterprise
could (and should) intervene - and I suspect the key point of the episode,
which has gotten lost in all the bandying about of claims of "genocide", is
that this became a much more complicated question once the crew realised
what was actually at play. It wasn't a case of giving a vaccine or stopping
an epidemic - it was potentially a case of deciding the outcome of two
species, of which they had limited knowledge yet for whom they were
proposing to make a judgement call without any idea as to the consequences.
In short, they were in over their heads.

The obvious answer, for a number commenting on here, is to provide the cure
regardless - but there are a number of what ifs. What if the peaceful state
of coexistence between the Valakians and the Menk was purely a reflection
of how the Valakians were being subdued by the illness, and their reliance
upon the Menk in certain situations (the orderlies working in the hospital,
for example)? What if, once back to full strength, the Valakians decided
that co-existence wasn't so fun after all (particularly if the Menk begin
to develop as suggested by Phlox) and moved to subjugate - or even destroy
- the Menk? Would Enterprise then bear moral responsibility for triggering
a potential genocide? What if, on being provided with warp technology
(which they also asked for), the Valakians became a threat to other species
in the galaxy? How plausible or not these are is a matter for conjecture -
the Valakians did not appear particularly antagonistic or belligerent, but
at the same time they're subjugating an entire species already - but
ultimately they're questions which the crew cannot answer. So what is
seemingly the obvious answer isn't necessarily so much. Ultimately, there's
a knowledge gap which makes any decision by the crew a punt in the dark -
and that, I believe, is why Archer eventually decides not to intervene. The
status quo is not a particularly palatable option for him, but at least
it's reasonably forseeable.

Where I think this episode did fall down, however, is (i) cures for genetic
defects don't tend to come in easy-to-use, portable vials and (ii) this was
crying for a kind of follow-up. Like, "We'll send help in a decade" or
something along those lines. As a standalone incident, it does jar very
strongly against the principles the Federation is due to adopt in the
future. Phlox's cure, meanwhile, came across as a bit of a deus ex machina
- it would have been more compelling, for my part, if he had maitained the
difficulty contention and suggested instead that he had found some
promising leads from the Menk DNA, but couldn't justify carrying on his
research for the reasons he gave. That would perhaps be more justifiable
than deliberately withholding a cure. Not necessarily justifiable full
stop, but a less-worse option perhaps. Overall though, I think it's a fair
reflection of the fact that there are no easy answers to a lot of
situations, and that's something Trek was very strong on. Look at "Space
Seed" in TOS followed by The Wrath of Khan for a (probably far better)
illustration of this. So as difficult an episode as it may be to stomach,
calling it a betrayal of Trek is a bit too strong for me.

Coming late to the party as well but this did strike me as the best
executed, strongest and well balanced eposode of Trek I have seen in a
while. Despite my (and others) ethical problems with the resolution of the
story - and the following debate seen on the message boards here - I would
have been more satisfied if Archer and Phlox had considered sending the
decision making up the line to a higher authority, or if some sort of
follow up was signalled. The rest of it was brilliant - every scene seemed
to be natural and thoughtful.

Brilliantly written episode that presented an ethical dilemma that people
are still debating over a decade later. This is Trek at its finest with
such strong storytelling that there is no easy answer to the dilemma
(that's why it's called a dilemma). Only if Enterprise could have presented
stories so well-conceived, it would have found a larger audience and gone
on for seven great seasons.

Just noticed this thread deep within my favorites bar having commented long
ago.

It makes me glad that there is still a discussion going on, albeit slowly.

Whilst ultimately I'm still a bit leery about the argument in the episode,
I've found that it is one I've remembered.

Best course of action, sustained investigation off screen (Vulcan council
of ethics, Starfleet, whatever) about the situation on the planet. Just a
little line to suggest such an action would occur would make it more
palatable.

I guess this does this a good case for the creation of the Prime directive,
as it doesn't (necessarily) require immediate action so time is allowed to
consider the matter in its entirety.

The Prime Directive of don't interfere strait away, but report back so the
wider implications can be considered. Not as concise as the captain making
the decision on the spot, but much more responsible.

You are the captain of a Federation starship. You receive a distress hail
from the dominant species on a nearby planet -- people are dying of a
peculiar genetic disorder, and the species as a whole has perhaps a couple
of centuries left. (Other species are not directly affected by the
disorder, though of course the extinction of the dominant species may
eventually lead to massive changes in the biosphere and food chain.) Your
ship's doctor investigates, and finds that he can cure the disorder. You
can, of course, not project all the possible consequences of intervention.

Consider the above scenario in relation to the following planets, and
answer the question: Do you give the society the cure? (Remember to
justify your answer.)

a) Vulcan, a planet that is a core member of the Federation.
b) Ventax II, a non-aligned world with a warp-capable society.
c) Valakis, a non-aligned world with a society that is not warp-capable,
but has had contact with warp-capable societies.

Thought Experiment #2:

Consider the scenario from Thought Experiment #1, again in relation to the
listed planets, with the following difference: instead of a genetic
disorder that will eliminate the species within a couple of centuries, the
planet is beset by a massive plague that will kill every member of the
affected species within three months.

The conjunction of these thought experiments is designed to consider two
variables: a) the type of society asking for help, and b) the relative
immediacy of the need for help. Good answers will consider such questions
as:

a) Is there a "bright line" of ethics that permits interfering with the
natural development of Vulcan, but not Valakis, and if so, what is it?
b1) If your answer to a) involves drawing an ethical distinction between
the cases based on the Prime Directive, on which side of that line do the
Ventaxians fall, and why?
b2) If your answer to a) involves denying the applicability of the Prime
Directive to these cases, in what circumstances is the Prime Directive
applicable?
c1) If your answers to analogous cases Thought Experiment #1 and Thought
Experiment #2 are different based on the time factor, why should a
difference in the amount of time available to solve the problem affect a
Starfleet officer's principles or actions?
c2) If your answers to analogous cases Thought Experiment #1 and Thought
Experiment #2 are the same in spite of the time factor, why should a
difference in the amount of time available to solve the problem NOT affect
a Starfleet officer's principles or actions?

Those students who need or want extra credit, and who have the time, may
also consider suitably adjusted thought experiments related to the
non-aligned, non-warp-capable, and completely isolated society that existed
on Vaal, pre-Kirk.

"One group (pro-Phlox decision) is saying that providing a cure is morally
PROHIBITED. The other group is saying that providing a cure is morally
COMPULSORY. Both groups deny the moral right of individual choice to
dispose of one's resources as one sees fit."

I think what you have said is a bit of a mischaracterization of the debate,
though an understandable one.

Granted, there are many systems of morality. But having read, and at times
taken part in, this discussion, it seems as if most of the discussion has
taken place *within* a system of morality -- namely, the one that is extant
on the various Star Trek series, and held by (most) members of Starfleet,
in relation to contact with other worlds and other forms of life.

If your point is that there are a variety of moral codes, and an individual
has the right to choose between them and so decide what ethical obligations
s/he lives under, then you are clearly correct. But people who accept a
moral code consequently accept ethical obligations. If your point is that
regardless of the moral principles they hold, individuals always have a
choice to do as they please, then again, you're right. Moral principles,
unlike metaphysical principles, are violable. But choosing to violate them
would be doing something you have accepted as wrong.

All of this was my long-winded way of saying that your comment is beside
the point. Within the context of the ethical framework in which this
discussion has taken place, the act of giving the cure to the Valakians
cannot be both morally prohibited and morally compulsory. (It can be
neither, but it cannot be both.) Hence, the debate -- which is about what
is right in that system. Pointing out that people still have a right to
choose, whether you were talking about choosing one's ethical system or
about choosing one's actions, is tangential to the main issue -- which is,
having accepted a frame of morality (in which some actions are right and
some wrong), and having accepted that one has a choice to make (and the
right to make it), what should we do?

Ahh, having skimmed over most of the debate, I clearly didn't understand
the "ground rules" as you pointed out. I thought posters in this thread
were coming at the moral dilemma from their own real-life moral principles.
But you're saying we're all supposed to pretend to accept the moral code
which "is extant on the various Star Trek series." I didn't realize that.

If that's the case, then I guess I can't add anything at all, since it's
pointless and distasteful to pretend to accept the absurd leftist utopian
moral code of Gene's vision for the series.

Of course, not everyone "in universe" accepts that code do they? My
favorite line of the entire DS9 series is when Nog asks Jake, "Well if you
in the Federation don't need money, then why do you need MY MONEY?"

So as a representative of the Ferengi point of view, I still offer up my
own solution. Rendering aid is neither morally compulsory, nor is it
morally prohibited. It's a matter of individual choice. Not under Gene's
code, but under the moral code of Quark, Nog, et. al. (notwithstanding the
writers' slandering of that moral code as exemplified by the silly Rules of
Acquisition, etc.).